HR Management v. County of Contra Costa CA1/5

Filed 5/29/14 HR Management v. County of Contra Costa CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

HR MANAGEMENT CORP., INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, A139841 v. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. N130739) Defendants and Respondents.

HR Management Corp., Inc. (HRM) appeals from a superior court order discharging an alternative writ issued in connection with HRM’s efforts to obtain records under the California Public Records Act (“the Act”; Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.)1 and denying HRM’s request for attorney fees. We conclude the substantive challenges to the court’s order are nonappealable and affirm the denial of fees.

I. BACKGROUND Under the Act, “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (§ 6250.) As a general rule, public records are open to inspection at all times during office hours “and every person has the right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided.” (§ 6253, subd. (a).) In addition to specific exemptions set forth in the code, the Act 1 Further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

contains a catchall provision that allows agencies to “justify withholding any record by demonstrating 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.” (§ 6255, subd. (a).) In March 2013, the County of Contra Costa (County) issued Request for Proposal No. 1302-004 (RFP) seeking bids to provide employment services to former inmates under the County’s community corrections program. Under the RFP timeline, the deadline for submissions was April 19, the notification of award recommendations would be made May 2, appeals could be presented from May 3–8, and the county board of supervisors would approve and authorize the contracts in a meeting tentatively scheduled to occur May 21. HRM submitted a proposal, but was not identified as the best qualified service provider. On May 1, 2013, HRM made a request under the Act for documents relating to the bids of the two successful vendors, including the complete proposals of those vendors, a copy of the scoring sheets used by the County to rate those vendors, the time stamps confirming when the proposals of those vendors were received, documents “confirming the qualifications” of the panel evaluating the proposals, and copies of the score sheets and notes regarding all vendors considered. On May 10, 2013, the County sent HRM a written response acknowledging it possessed documents responsive to the request and seeking clarification of what was meant by documents confirming the qualifications of the panel. With the exception of the proposals by the successful vendors, documents responsive to HRM’s request were provided during the following week. The County indicated it would disclose the successful vendors’ proposals after the board of supervisors awarded the contracts, as it was expected to do at its May 21 meeting. In support of its decision to delay disclosure of the proposals until an award was made, the County cited Section 25-4.404(f) of the Contra Costa County Code, which provides: “Contracts, Bids and Proposals. Contracts, contractors’ bids, responses to requests for proposals and all other records of communications between the county and