In Collondrez v. City of Rio Vista, published March 16, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 3 affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court's ruling on an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike. When the plaintiff was a police officer, he received a notice of intent to impose discipline for allegedly falsifying a police report concerning an arrest and use of force. The officer pursued his Skelly rights and administrative appeal, but settled before the appeal was arbitrated. A provision of the settlement agreement required the city to give the plaintiff prior notice before releasing disciplinary notices and reports concerning him. When Penal Code section 832.7, requiring disclosure of police personnel records pertaining to sustained findings of dishonesty or making false reports, went into effect, the city received media requests under the California Public Records Act and section 832.7 for the plaintiff's records. The city released them, giving the plaintiff notice before some but not all of the releases. Due to media coverage, the plaintiff's then-current employer fired him. The plaintiff sued the city for breach of contract, invasion of privacy, interference with prospective economic advantage, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court denied the city’s anti-SLAPP suit as to the breach of contract and privacy counts, and granted it as to the other counts. It found the entire action arose from acts in furtherance of free speech and in connection with an issue of public concern, but found the plaintiff made a showing he would likely prevail on the breach of contract and privacy counts.
The appellate court agreed that the action arose out of conduct protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The focus is the defendant’s activity giving rise to the statute. Here, the activity is release of the plaintiff’s personnel information to media outlets. That is the activity that gave rise to the plaintiff’s alleged harm. The addition of breach of contract causes of action does not change the gravamen of the suit. Providing information to news outlets involves a matter of public interest. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that anti-SLAPP did not appear because the city had a nondiscretionary duty to comply with the CPRA. The CPRA requires agencies to make determinations whether the requested records are subject to or exempt from disclosure, and whether public interest in nondisclosure outweighs that served by disclosure. That determination is not immune from the chilling effect of potential litigation anti-SLAPP is designed to prevent.
The appellate court disagreed with the trial court’s determination that the plaintiff was likely to prevail on the breach of contract and invasion of privacy claims. The court concluded the disclosure was required by Penal Code section 832.7(b)(1)(C). The plaintiff contended that the statute required a “sustained finding” of dishonesty, which requires completion of the administrative appeal process. The appellate court concluded that the “sustained finding” language includes an agency finding that remains in place because the plaintiff settles the case before his administrative appeal is heard. The appellate court further rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the agency failed to properly redact information in the produced files as required by statute.