GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 01/16/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 21

Tentative Ruling

The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on Petitioner’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One and Requests for Production, Set One, and Request for Sanctions, which is scheduled to be heard by the Court on Friday, January 16, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. in Department 21. The tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of this Department no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that such party has notified the other side of its intention to appear.

THE COURT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE TO HEAR THIS MATTER ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 2026. IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, it will occur on Wednesday, January 22, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 21. Oral argument must be requested in accordance with the original hearing date of January 16, 2026.

Oral argument shall be limited to no more than 20 minutes per side.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 01/16/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 21

Office and an official reporter will be provided.

Petitioner is admonished that the present motion presents multiple discovery-related requests for relief in a single motion, in violation of Local Rule 2.31, subdivision (E). This rule requires each motion to be filed “as a separate document and a separate filing fee paid for each. Parties may not combine motions pertaining to different types of discovery within the same document. Failure to comply with any part of this rule regarding discovery motions may, in the discretion of the Court, be grounds for the motions being dropped without consideration.”

Petitioner is further admonished that the notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to notify the Court of said inability and appear at the hearing in person.

Lastly, Petitioner is admonished for failing to meet and confer with counsel for Respondent regarding scheduling prior to setting this hearing.

I. Factual And Procedural Background

Petitioner alleges that on December 20, 2023, it submitted a California Public Records Act (“PRA”) to Respondent seeking correspondence of two DOJ officials that included the email domain of a particular “pressure group” over a particular time in 2023. While Respondent produced some records, it also withheld records on the basis of certain PRA privileges/exemptions.

On December 26, 2023, Petitioner alleges it submitted a PRA request to Respondent seeking correspondence of a DOJ official that included the email domain of “one or more of five pressure groups or another institution” over a time period in 2023. Again, Respondent produced some records and withheld others on the basis of certain PRA privileges/exemptions.

On December 29, 2023, Petitioner alleges it submitted a PRA request to Respondent seeking correspondence of a different DOJ official for a four-day period that was from or used the name of a particular “pressure group.” Respondent did not produce any additional records in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 01/16/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 21

response to this request on the basis that all responsive records had either already been produced or would be privileged/exempt from production under the PRA.

On January 3, 2024, Petitioner submitted a PRA request to Respondent seeking correspondence of another DOJ official that included the email domain of “one or more of nine pressure groups” over a period of time in 2023. Respondent did not produce any records in response to this request, asserting that all responsive records were privileged/exempt from production under the PRA.

On April 12, 2024, Petitioner submitted two PRA requests to Respondent seeking correspondence of several OAG officials, as well as the calendars of one OAG official for four months and five days. Respondent produced some records and withheld others on the basis of certain PRA privileges/exemptions.

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate directing Respondent to produce all requested records. By way of the present motions, Petitioner requests that the Court order Respondent to provide further responses to several discovery requests. Respondent opposes the motions.

II.

Discussion

A. The Public Records Act

Effective January 1, 2023, the legislature re-codified the PRA within the Government Code. However, section 7920.100, provides that the recodification did not: “substantively change the law relating to inspection of public records. The act is intended to be entirely nonsubstantive in effect. Every provision of this division and every other provision of this act, including, without limitation, every cross-reference in every provision of the act, shall be interpreted consistent with the nonsubstantive intent of the act.” Accordingly, case law interpreting the PRA remains as applicable today as it did before the subject recodification. (Gov. Code § 7920.110.)

The PRA (Gov. Code §7920.00 et seq.[1]) provides that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (§ 7921.000) Public records are to be open to inspection and “any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 01/16/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 21

deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.” (§ 7922.525.) “Given the strong public policy of the people's right to information concerning the people's business [], and the constitutional mandate to construe statutes limiting the right of access narrowly (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(2)), “all public records are subject to disclosure unless the Legislature has expressly provided to the contrary. [Citation.]” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 617.)

Several categories of documents are exempt from PRA disclosure. The “exemptions are to be narrowly construed [Citation], and the government agency opposing disclosure bears the burden of proving that one or more apply in a particular case. [Citation.]” (Labor & Workforce Development Agency v. Superior Court (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 12.) Relevant to the current litigation are the deliberative process privilege, and the correspondence exemption.

B. Discovery in PRA cases

The Civil Discovery Act applies to PRA proceedings. (City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 272, 287.) Nonetheless, the right to discovery “remains subject to the trial court’s authority to manage and limit discovery as required.” (Id., at p. 288.) A typical PRA case involves mainly a legal determination, rather than factual ones, on whether certain records must be disclosed. (Id., at p. 289.) Sometimes, a PRA case may require resolution of a fact-intensive dispute. (Ibid.; see Bernardi v. County of Monterey (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1386 [discovery allowed for limited purpose of determining whether certain records possessed by another entity were nonetheless constructively possessed by the agency].)

When a party seeks to compel discovery in a PRA case, “the trial court must determine whether the discovery sought is necessary to resolve whether the agency has a duty to disclose, and to additionally consider whether the request is justified given the need for an expeditious resolution.” (Id., at p. 289.) The trial court “has discretion to consider whether the petitioner has made an adequate showing that the discovery is likely to aid in the resolution of the particular issues presented in the proceeding.” (Id., at p. 290.)

“[T]rial courts may also look to federal case law addressing the use of discovery in cases arising under the Freedom of Information Act,” after which the PRA was modeled. (Id., at pp. 289-290.) The use of discovery in FOIA cases “is more ‘limited’ than in other types of civil actions.” (Id., at p. 290.) “[W]hile discovery may be appropriate when the plaintiff can raise sufficient question as to the agency’s good faith in processing or in its search, it is improper

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 01/16/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 21

when sought for the bare hope of falling upon something that might impugn the [agency’s evidence].” (Ibid.) “[S]peculative criticism” of the agency’s search for records cannot justify a petitioner’s request for additional discovery. (Accuracy in Media, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1999) 194 F.3d 120, 125.)

C. Discovery in this Litigation

Petitioner argues that Respondent must provide further responses because it has not “satisfied its obligations” under the PRA. Petitioner states that it seeks information related to “(1) Respondent’s investigation and processing of Petitioner’s CPRA requests, or lack thereof; (2) Respondent’s actions to achieve compliance with the requirements of the CPRA; (3) Respondent’s decision and underlying basis to redact certain information and not provide same to Petitioner; and (4) Respondent’s invocation of any privileges or exemptions under the CPRA. Without this information, Petitioner cannot ascertain whether Respondent complied with the CPRA and whether it properly withheld or redacted records as requested by Petitioner in its CPRA requests.” (MPAs, p. 5.)

Respondent argues that it already provided 130 pages of responses, as well as a 52-page log of withheld records. Respondent maintains that Petitioner now “seeks to adjudicate the merits of this case via a discovery motion.” (Oppo., p. 5.)

These requests are essentially Petitioner’s attempt to preview of Respondent’s opposition brief. These are not factual requests that are “necessary to resolve whether the agency has a duty to disclose” the subject documentation. (City of Los Angeles, supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at 289.) Petitioner may not use the discovery process to “preempt the adjudication of the merits of the litigation.” (County of San Benito v. Superior Court (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243, 261.) Petitioner does not argue that Respondent has failed to fulfill its obligation to undertake a thorough search for responsive records, and Petitioner has failed to provide any evidence that would support such an argument.

Further, the Declaration of Sarah Kim Pak filed in support of Respondent’s opposition describes the search procedure and identifies the number of records produced as well as the number of records withheld for each PRA request. At the merits hearing, pursuant to the PRA, will be Respondent’s burden to prove to the Court that the claimed privileges/exemptions apply to the withheld documents, not simply identify the exemptions/privileges. Petitioner will have an opportunity to rebut Respondent’s arguments by way of a reply brief.

Should the Court determine in camera review of the records is necessary, the Court will so order after reviewing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 01/16/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 21

the parties’ briefing on the merits.

III.

Conclusion

The motions to compel and requests for sanctions are DENIED. Petitioner has failed to establish that further discovery is necessary, especially given the responses and privilege log Respondent has already provided to Petitioner.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In the event that this tentative ruling becomes the final ruling of the Court, the Court’s minute order will be effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

[1] Further undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code.