Carlsbad Police Officers Assoc. v. City of Carlsbad, No. D075723 *D4d1 (May 18, 2020)
This is a “reverse public records act” lawsuit brought by some cop unions to prevent the disclosure of excessive force complaints, which are now subject to disclosure under a law passed in 2018. The ACLU and several media outlets sought to intervene. The trial court granted intervention, but conditioned it on the intervenors disclaiming any right to obtain fees under Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5, which codifies the private attorney general doctrine. Ultimately the court agreed with intervenors’ position that the law required disclosure of the records. Intervenors then appealed the condition.
Under § 387(d)(1)(B), the intervenors were entitled to intervene as a matter of right. They had previously filed PRA requests to obtain the disputed documents, had the cops prevailed, intervenors’ ability to obtain the documents would have been impaired, and the real defendants in the case—various police departments—were essentially agnostic to the merits of the cops’ case. As the Court of Appeal explains, that didn’t necessarily preclude the court from subjecting the intervenors to appropriate conditions to ensure the efficiency of the litigation. But because intervenors of right have an interest in the controversy equivalent to that of a party, courts have less leeway to impose conditions than they do for permissive intervenors. Generally conditions on as of right intervenors are limited to “housekeeping” conditions aimed to prevent duplicative litigation.
The Court of Appeal holds that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the condition. Indeed, “the analysis here is not close.” It is settled law that a successful intervenor in a reverse PRA case is entitled to a fee award under § 1021.5. Forcing the intervenors here to give that up impaired their substantive rights and ran contrary to the public policy justification for § 1021.5. The trial court went too far.
Reversed.
Showing posts with label cops. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cops. Show all posts
Thursday, June 11, 2020
Wednesday, September 9, 2015
A Little Order for a Change
Assoc. for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. L.A. Times Commc’ns LLC, B253083 (D2d3 Aug. 19, 2015).
The anti-SLAPP statute takes a lot of heat, often deserved, because it can interfere with claims that have little or nothing to do with anyone’s legit First Amendment rights. But this here is the quintessential anti-SLAPP motion. A cop union sued The Los Angeles Times on behalf of anonymous deputy sheriffs to obtain a prior restraint order enjoining the paper from reporting that some new deputies hired by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department had skeletons in their closets. According to the complaint, the reporter had obtained confidential background check information—including allegations about prior misconduct—that he intended to use in reporting a story.
After the Union’s TRO motion was unceremoniously denied because it sought relief that wasn’t even available for the Pentagon Papers, the LAT filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted. The union does not seriously contend that its claims don’t arise from protected activity. Instead, it argues that the anti-SLAPP remedy is barred because the LAT’s conduct was “illegal as a matter of law.” It tried to support this assertion with some anonymous declarations that stated, effectively, that the background check materials were confidential so that anyone who obtained them must have done so through illegal means. The union did not, however, actually provide any evidence that anyone at the LAT stole the files or received them with knowledge that they were stolen. Moreover, the the First Amendment protects the right of the press to publish or disclose information contained in documents that had been illegally obtained by others. So by no means could the Union show that the LAT’s actions were “illegal as a matter of law.”
Moving on to the merits, the Union’s claim had none, of course, because it sought to impose a prior restraint on the press. See N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The Union makes various specious arguments why the standard doesn’t apply. But c’mon! As the court explains “[h]ere, a labor union and unnamed officers seek to stop a newspaper from publishing news reports about the hiring and evaluation of officers, including allegations of past misconduct.”
Affirmed.
The anti-SLAPP statute takes a lot of heat, often deserved, because it can interfere with claims that have little or nothing to do with anyone’s legit First Amendment rights. But this here is the quintessential anti-SLAPP motion. A cop union sued The Los Angeles Times on behalf of anonymous deputy sheriffs to obtain a prior restraint order enjoining the paper from reporting that some new deputies hired by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department had skeletons in their closets. According to the complaint, the reporter had obtained confidential background check information—including allegations about prior misconduct—that he intended to use in reporting a story.
After the Union’s TRO motion was unceremoniously denied because it sought relief that wasn’t even available for the Pentagon Papers, the LAT filed an anti-SLAPP motion, which the trial court granted. The union does not seriously contend that its claims don’t arise from protected activity. Instead, it argues that the anti-SLAPP remedy is barred because the LAT’s conduct was “illegal as a matter of law.” It tried to support this assertion with some anonymous declarations that stated, effectively, that the background check materials were confidential so that anyone who obtained them must have done so through illegal means. The union did not, however, actually provide any evidence that anyone at the LAT stole the files or received them with knowledge that they were stolen. Moreover, the the First Amendment protects the right of the press to publish or disclose information contained in documents that had been illegally obtained by others. So by no means could the Union show that the LAT’s actions were “illegal as a matter of law.”
Moving on to the merits, the Union’s claim had none, of course, because it sought to impose a prior restraint on the press. See N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The Union makes various specious arguments why the standard doesn’t apply. But c’mon! As the court explains “[h]ere, a labor union and unnamed officers seek to stop a newspaper from publishing news reports about the hiring and evaluation of officers, including allegations of past misconduct.”
Affirmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)