Intervenors, Private Attorney General: Intervenor In Reverse-CPRA Litigation Properly Denied Attorney’s Fees For Failure To Satisfy Private Enforcement Element Because Its Intervention Did Not Result In A Change In School District’s Release Of Docume

Along The Way, 4/1 DCA Did Not Endorse Marken’s Observations/Dictum On No Fee Recovery In A Reverse-CPRA Case.

            In Voice of San Diego v. Teacher 1 etc., Case Nos. D075148 et al. (4^th Dist., Div. 1 June 23, 2020) (unpublished), an intervenor in a reverse-California Public Records Act (reverse CPRA) case was denied CCP § 1021.5 attorney’s fees after some school districts released records after petitioner active/retired teachers tried to enjoin release of records unless certain information was redacted.  Intervenor’s appeal of the fee denial was affirmed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.

            The problem here was that intervenor did not satisfy the “private enforcement” element of section 1021.5.  When all the facts were sorted, the school districts had basically agreed to produce the documents, once reverse CPRA concerns were addressed, with nothing significantly tethered to intervenor’s actions.  That was a factual call, with the trial judge not getting it wrong.

            However, in a footnote and other observations, this panel did indicate it did not agree with dictum in Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist., 202 Cal.App.4^th 1250, 1268    (2012) suggesting that parties or intervenors could not obtain fee entitlement under the California Public Records Act.