Source: http://michaelkohlhaas.org/wp/2018/10/24/fashion-district-bid-lawsuit-motion-filed-to-compel-bid-to-explain-just-what-the-heck-they-were-talking-about-when-they-claimed-all-those-exemptions-carol-humiston-says-no-way-mdash/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:09:04+00:00

Document:
DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, Respondent.
Petitioner filed this case to secure Defendant/Respondent’s compliance with three Public Records Act requests for records. In response to three of the four requested items, the BID indicated–at times vaguely–that it withheld responsive records under Cal. Gov. Code § 6255(a), citing to the so-called “deliberative process privilege.” (Declaration of MK filed herewith ¶ 3 (hereafter “MK Decl.”).) Each time Respondent claimed exemptions, Petitioner requested additional information as to how specifically the cited exemption applied, but to no avail. (MK Decl. ¶ 4.) Further, after filing suit, Petitioner requested that Respondent provide a list of withheld and/or redacted documents; Respondent declined, and the parties met and conferred to no avail. (Declaration of Abenicio Cisneros filed herewith ¶¶ 2-5 (hereafter “Cisneros Decl.”.) The requests are discussed in detail below.
Request #1 – Communication with the South Park Business Improvement District and the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council.
Request #2 – Communications with Urban Place Consulting (UPC).
Request #3 – Board Member Linda Becker’s emails.
Notably, the “deliberative process” privilege claimed by respondent is far from absolute. “’Not every disclosure which hampers the deliberative process implicates the deliberative process privilege. Only if the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure does the deliberative process spring into existence. The burden is on the [one claiming the privilege to establish the conditions for creation of the privilege.’” Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal. App. 4th 296, 306-07 [rejecting assertion that deliberative process privilege applied]. In light of the conditional nature of the “deliberative process privilege,” the need for a list of withheld documents showing who communicated about what, and when, is magnified in order to shed light on whether any documents can be withheld on that basis.
Petitioner requested a list of withheld and redacted documents after filing suit; Respondent declined to provide such a list.
In order that Petitioner may have fair opportunity to litigate this matter, and that the court may be sufficiently informed to adjudicate it, the court should order Respondent to prepare a list of withheld and redacted documents. Such a list is known in federal open records law as a “Vaughn index.” Under federal precedent, the Vaughn index is a log which (1) identifies each document withheld; (2) states the statutory exemption claimed; and (3) explains how disclosure would damage the interests protected by the claimed exemption. See Citizens Comm’n on Human Rights v. FDA, 45 F.3d 1325, 1326 n.1 (9th Cir. 1995). The description of the withheld material should be sufficiently specific to permit a reasoned judgment as to whether the material is actually exempt under the law. See Founding Church of Scientology v. Bell, 603 F. 2d 945, 949 (D. C. Cir. 1979).
The California Court of Appeal has held that preparation of a list of withheld and redacted documents is “consistent with the language and spirit of the Public Records Act.” State Bd. of Equalization v. Superior Court, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at p. 1193. The Court of Appeal has further stated that, “[b]ecause the agency has full knowledge of the contents of the withheld records and the requester has only the agency’s affidavits and descriptions of the documents, its affidavits must be specific enough to give the requester a meaningful opportunity to contest the withholdings of the documents and the court to determine whether the exemption applies.” ACLU of N. Cal. v. Superior Court, supra, 202 Cal. App. 4th at p. 83.
Here, Respondent has cited alleged exemptions to withhold an unknown number of records. Petitioner has made repeated attempts to gain clarity as to how many records Respondent is withholding and as to how the cited exemptions might apply to the withheld records. Despite those attempts, Respondent refuses to voluntarily provide the information which Petitioner requires in order to have a meaningful opportunity to contest the withholdings. As Respondent has refused to provide the required information voluntarily in response to Petitioner’s requests, it is appropriate that the court should order Respondent to do so. Otherwise, the parties would be briefing, and the court would be deciding, this case in the dark.
For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court GRANT this motion. The Court should order Defendant/Respondent to produce a list of withheld and redacted documents which conforms with the requirements of a Vaughn index within fourteen (14) days.
Image of Carol Humiston is ©2018 MichaelKohlhaas.Org and is kinda sorta something de this one over here.
When a law says that someone “shall” do something, it’s not optional. However, in practice, this section of the CPRA does seem to be optional in the sense that no agencies will actually tell anyone what their justifications are and for whatever reason courts won’t enforce this right other than by ordering agencies to explain, which they seem not always to do. In other words it’s a requirement but there are no consequences outside a courtroom for not complying. Sadly, this is true of any number of requirements imposed by the CPRA.
Such an undertaking is called a privilege log or sometimes a Vaughn Index by analogy with a Federal procedure to do with the Freedom of Information Act.
Along with, of course, self-proclaimed Hollywood superlawyer Jeffrey Charles Briggs.

References: § 6255
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.