Amendments Were In Response To The Result Being Sought By Public Entity In The Brazil Case In The Bay Area.
Before the legislative amendments which we will soon discuss, a public entity District in Newark Unified School Dist. v. Brazil, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG14738281 sought to recover prevailing party fees from a taxpayer requester of certain records under the California Public Records Act (PRA). District was a plaintiff obtaining a return of inadvertently produced documents. Based on the former wording of Government Code section 6259(d), District claimed it was a successful “plaintiff” and sought $449,317.60 in fees from requester Ms. Brazil.
That apparently inspired the introduction of SB 1244 (Wieckowski) to amend the fee-shifting provision of the PRA. Governor Brown did sign the changes into law, effective January 1, 2019.
This new law changes the term “plaintiff” in PRA’s mandatory fee-shifting provision to “requester.” The new law also declares that nothing in the fee-shifting provision shall be construed to limit a requester’s right to obtain fees and costs pursuant to section 6259(d) or pursuant to any other law. Together, these changes to the PRA protect requesters who defend the public’s right to know, regardless of the requester’s technical title in litigation, but does not retard a public entity from suing to obtain a return of inadvertently produced documents.
Incidentally, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Brand did deny District’s fee motion without the benefit of the amendments, relying on the public policy of the PRA to encourage rather than chill requesters from seeking disclosure of public records. We also share that Ms. Brazil did not obtain fees based on the lower court’s determination she had only obtained interim success at the time she sought fee recovery.
Comments