In January 2013, as relevant here, Weaver requested the District Attorney provide
him with (1) copies of all charging documents in homicide cases filed by the District
Attorney between January 1977 and May 1993 and (2) all court filings in superior court
cases People v. Troiani, et al. (Super. Ct. S.D. County, No. CRN9925) and People v.
Moffett (Super. Ct. S.D. County, No. CR103094) addressing allegations the District
Attorney selectively prosecuted capital cases.
The District Attorney denied Weaver's requests on grounds that under the CPRA,
the documents sought were exempt as investigatory files (§ 6254, subd. (f)); and
prohibited from disclosure under a different state or federal law (§ 6254, subd. (k)). The
District Attorney further argued the documents sought implicate the privacy rights of
"hundreds of defendants and victims under article I, sections 1 and 28, of the California
1 All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise stated.
2
[C]onstitution." The District Attorney also objected that Weaver's request for the list of
homicide cases was overly burdensome because "programming and extraction of the data
necessary to identify the records would require approximately 35-40 hours of time at a
cost of $85 per hour for a total of approximately $3,400." The District Attorney noted
Weaver's request was duplicative of one he had made in postconviction discovery under
Penal Code section 1054.9.2
Weaver filed a writ petition in superior court seeking to compel the District
Attorney to produce the documents. The superior court denied the petition, adopting the
District Attorney's position set forth above, except that the court did not rule on the issue
of the request's burdensomeness.
We issued an order to show cause. The District Attorney filed an unverified
return, to which Weaver replied.
DISCUSSION
In response to our request for supplemental briefing, and also at oral argument, the
District Attorney acknowledged that the documents Weaver seeks are the District
Attorney's file copies of "court documents" whose originals were filed in the superior
court. (The Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 106 [defining
2 We deny the District Attorney's request for judicial notice of Weaver's discovery request filed in his postconviction motion because that document is immaterial to our disposition of this case. Under the CPRA, there are "no limitations on access to a public record based upon the purpose for which the record is being requested, if the record is otherwise subject to disclosure." (§ 6257.5.) Generally, "unless exempted, all public records may be examined by any member of the public, often the press, but conceivably any person with no greater interest than idle curiosity." (Marylander v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125.) 3
"court documents" to include "the various documents filed in or received by the court,
such as pleadings and motions filed by the parties and the evidence admitted in court
proceedings. All of these documents represent and reflect the official work of the court,
in which the public and press have a justifiable interest."].) The issue we decide is
whether the District Attorney's copies of judicial documents—which must be made
available to the public upon request at the superior court—are entitled to exemption from
disclosure as investigatory documents under the CPRA or because they implicate privacy
rights. We conclude the documents sought are not exempt from disclosure. As the
California Supreme Court has stated: "We consider it unlikely the Legislature intended
to render documents confidential based on their location." (Commission on Peace Officer
Standards & Training v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, 291 [quoting Williams v.
Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 337, 355 for the proposition that "the law does not
provide . . . that a public agency may shield a record from public disclosure, regardless of
its nature, simply by placing it in a file labeled 'investigatory' "].) The same principle
applies here. "[T]he content of the document at issue, not the location in which it is
stored, [is] determinative." (Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v.
Superior Court, at p. 291.)
In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature sought to provide the public broad access to
documents regarding how government agencies carry out their responsibilities.
"Endorsing the proposition 'that access to information concerning the conduct of the
people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state'
4
(§ 6250), the Legislature enacted the [CPRA] 'for the purpose of increasing freedom of
information by giving members of the public access to information in the possession of
public agencies.' [Citation.] Legislative policy favors disclosure. [Citation.] 'All public
records are subject to disclosure unless the [CPRA] expressly provides otherwise.' "
(American Civil Liberties Union of Northern Cal. v. Superior Court (2011) 202
Cal.App.4th 55, 67.) "Since disclosure is favored, all exemptions are narrowly construed.
[Citation.] The agency opposing disclosure bears the burden of proving that an
exemption applies." (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th
1301, 1321.)
As a matter of due process, the District Attorney is required to file a complaint in
each criminal case to invoke the court's jurisdiction. (City of San Diego v. Municipal
prosecuted by indictment or information, except as provided in [Penal Code] Section
859a."]; 738 ["The proceeding for a preliminary examination must be commenced by
written complaint"]; 949 ["The first pleading on the part of the people in the superior
court in a felony case is the indictment, information, or the complaint in any case
certified to the superior court under [Penal Code] Section 859a. The first pleading on the
part of the people in a misdemeanor or infraction case is the complaint except as
otherwise provided by law."].) Because they were publicly filed, the charging documents
Weaver seeks are not investigatory files exempt from disclosure under the CPRA.
Similarly, the documents he seeks from the Troiani and Moffett case files were publicly
filed in superior court, and involve motions for disclosure of information regarding
5
claims of selective prosecution. As such, they are not investigatory files exempt from
disclosure under section 6254, subdivision (f).
Again, in light of the fact the documents were publicly filed, we reject the District
Attorney's arguments based on the California Constitution's right to privacy. "[A]
plaintiff alleging an invasion of privacy in violation of the state constitutional right to
privacy must establish each of the following: (1) a legally protected privacy interest; (2) a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances; and (3) conduct by defendant
constituting a serious invasion of privacy." (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.
(1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 39-40; International Federation of Professional & Technical
Engineers, Local 21 AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 338.) Disclosure
of the documents Weaver seeks would not violate the privacy rights of either the
defendants or victims in homicide cases. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in
documents required to be filed in court when those documents are not filed under seal.
The District Attorney also claims the documents sought are exempt under section
6254, subdivision (k), which relates to "[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or
prohibited pursuant to federal or state law." The District Attorney claims that disclosing
the documents would violate Penal Code section 13302, which forbids an employee of
the local criminal justice agency from knowingly furnishing a record or information
obtained from a record to a person who is not authorized by law to receive that
information. But Penal Code section 13302 has recently been modified (Stats. 2012, ch.
84, § 1) and now states: "Nothing in this section shall prohibit a public prosecutor from
accessing and obtaining information from the public prosecutor's case management
6
database to respond to a request for publicly disclosable information pursuant to the
California Public Records Act." Therefore, the District Attorney's argument is
unavailing.
The District Attorney also objects that Weaver's request is burdensome under
section 6255, subdivision (a), which states, "The agency shall justify withholding any
record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of
this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not
disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the
record." As stated, the superior court did not rule on this objection.
The only evidence the District Attorney presented regarding the purported
burdensomeness of Weaver's request was its estimate that for it to generate a list of
homicide cases filed in San Diego County between 1977 and 1993, one of its employees
would have to work a 40-hour week at a cost of approximately $3,400. Our review of
the District Attorney's objection to the request as burdensome is by necessity limited to
this evidence. (Campbell v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 635, 647.)
We conclude the public's interest in the fair administration of the death penalty is a
longstanding concern in California, and it is inconceivable to us that any countervailing
interest that the District Attorney could assert outweighs the magnitude of the public's
interest. (Accord, American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Superior
Court (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 71 ["We agree that '[f]ew issues in American society
have generated as much impassioned debate as the death penalty. At one end of the
spectrum, abolitionists condemn the intentional taking of human life by the State as
7
barbaric and profoundly immoral. At the other, proponents see death, even a painful
death, as the only just punishment for crimes that inflict unimaginable suffering on
victims and their surviving loved ones. Even among those with less absolute positions,
there are vigorous arguments about the social, penological, and economic costs and
benefits of capital punishment.' "].)
Moreover, we agree that: "Beyond the state of the evidence in this particular
record, there are other reasons to accord little weight to the financial concerns. As has
been said, 'There is nothing in the [CPRA] to suggest that a records request must impose
no burden to the government agency.' [Citations.] Thus, for example, the $43,000 cost
of compiling an accurate list of names was not a 'valid reason to proscribe disclosure of
the identity of such individuals.' " (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170
Cal.App.4th 1301, 1327, quoting CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 892, 909].) The approximately $3,400 expense of generating the list of
cases at issue here is substantially less of a reason and pales in comparison to the interests
of Weaver and the public in disclosure.
8
DISPOSITION
Let a writ issue directing the superior court to vacate the order dated March 26,
2013, and enter an order granting La Twon Weaver's petition. Costs to La Twon Weaver.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.493 (a)(1)(A).) The opinion will be final as to this court 15
days after filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490 (b)(2)(A).)
O'ROURKE, J.
WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The District Attorney's copies of publicly filed judicial documents are not exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act as investigatory files or due to privacy concerns, and the public interest in disclosure outweighs the administrative burden of production.
Issues
Whether a District Attorney's copies of publicly filed court documents are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act as investigatory files.
Whether the disclosure of such documents violates the constitutional right to privacy of defendants or victims.
Whether the administrative burden of producing the requested records outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
Disposition. granted
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We conclude the documents sought are not exempt from disclosure.”
“There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in documents required to be filed in court when those documents are not filed under seal.”
“The approximately $3,400 expense of generating the list of cases at issue here is substantially less of a reason and pales in comparison to the interests of Weaver and the public in disclosure.”