Special Fee Shifting Statute: Fifth District Confronts A Similar Causation Issue Under The California Public Records Act On The Same Day

Result Was The Same:  Attorney’s Fees Request Were Properly Denied Based On Lack Of Causation.

            The Fifth District, in Austin v. City of Taft, confronted a causation situation under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).  We posted on this case.  The same day, it also decided a similar situation with the same result in J.A. v. County of Madera, Case No. F083546 (5^th Dist. July 14, 2022) (unpublished).

            There, a CPRA petitioner wanted information about a police shooting of a relative, with the County responding that it would produce the responsive materials after the district attorney had completed its investigation into the shooting.  Petitioner’s counsel and the County had many exchanges in which County reiterated it would produce the information as soon as the investigation was complete.  Petitioner filed a petition to compel disclosure; however, before the matter could be heard, County honored its promise and produced the information after the investigation had been concluded.  The lower court found the petition to be moot and denied a request for attorney’s fees by petitioner.

            The Fifth District affirmed, relying on much of the reasoning and case analysis which supported the result in Austin.  There was a lack of causation because the CPRA litigation did not motivate the delayed production, because County all the time indicated it would produce responsive information to the CPRA request.  That being said, the fee request was properly denied.