Ardon v. City of Los Angeles

Filed 3/17/16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

ESTUARDO ARDON, ) ) Plaintiff and Respondent, ) ) S223876 v. ) ) Ct.App. 2/6 B252476 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ) ) Los Angeles County Defendant and Appellant. ) Super. Ct. No. BC363959 ____________________________________)

In civil discovery proceedings during the course of litigation between plaintiff Estuardo Ardon and defendant City of Los Angeles (City), the trial court determined that certain documents City possessed were privileged under the attorney-client privilege or the privilege for attorney work product, and City withheld them from plaintiff. Years later, plaintiff filed a request under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.; Public Records Act) seeking to obtain documents relating to the subject matter of the litigation. In response, City‟s administrative office inadvertently provided plaintiff with some of the privileged documents. We granted review to decide whether the release of privileged documents under these circumstances waives the privilege, thus allowing plaintiff to retain and use the documents and to disseminate them to others. The question requires us to interpret Government Code section 6254.5 (section 6254.5), part of the Public Records Act, which generally provides that “disclosure” of a public record waives any privilege.

1

Interpreting section 6254.5 in light of the Public Records Act as a whole, we conclude that its waiver provision applies to an intentional, not an inadvertent, disclosure. A governmental entity‟s inadvertent release of privileged documents under the Public Records Act does not waive the privilege. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which reached a contrary conclusion. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This is the second time this case has come before this court. (See Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 52 Cal.4th 241.) As we explained in our earlier opinion, plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit against defendant City challenging the validity of a certain tax and seeking a refund of taxes already collected. In March and September 2007, as part of the underlying litigation, plaintiff served City with two requests for production of documents relating to the tax in dispute. It also served a subpoena for production of business records on the League of California Cities, of which City is a member. City produced some of the requested documents but, in February 2008, it also provided plaintiff with “Defendant City of Los Angeles‟ Privilege Log” (privilege log), listing 27 documents it was withholding on the basis that they were privileged. In March 2008, the superior court granted motions to quash filed by City and the League of California Cities, finding certain documents to be privileged under either the attorney-client privilege or the privilege for attorney work product. On January 14, 2013, Rachele R. Rickert, one of plaintiff‟s attorneys, acting pursuant to the Public Records Act, requested the “City Administrative Officer” to provide copies of documents relating to the tax at issue. On January 25, 2013, an assistant city administrative officer responded that “[w]e have approximately 53 documents that pertain to your request,” which they would provide at a cost of $6.95. Plaintiff paid the fee, and the city administrative office provided the documents.