Modification: Edais v. Superior Court (Foucrault)

MUSTAFA EDAIS et al.,

Petitioners,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,

Respondent;

ROBERT FOUCRAULT et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

No. A164947

(San Mateo County

Super. Ct. No. 21CIV04737)

California Court of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division Three

Filed February 6, 2023

MUSTAFA EDAIS et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

ROBERT FOUCRAULT et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

No. A165208

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION; AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

Trial Court: San Mateo County Superior Court

Trial Judge: Hon. Robert D. Foiles

Counsel:

Mackenzie & Albritton, Mark L. Mosley for Plaintiff and Appellant

John D. Nibbelin, County Counsel, Brian E. Kulich, Chief Deputy for Defendant and Respondent

THE COURT*:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 17, 2023, be modified as follows.

1. The sentence in footnote 6, on page 15, that starts with "Here, the court has already ordered the unredacted Investigation Report . . ." shall be modified to read:

Here, the court has already ordered the unredacted Investigation Report to be produced to petitioners under a protective order and no party has sought review of this portion of the court's order, but the trial court should carefully consider Civil Code section 56.10, subdivision (b)(8) if other requested documents include information that the Coroner's Office obtained from Munir's health care providers, or if other persons request that the Coroner's Office disclose to them the unredacted Investigation Report.

2. On page 17, the following shall replace ". . . we know of no comparable statute protecting the other documents petitioners seek.⁷":

". . . we know of no comparable statute protecting the other documents petitioners seek, except to the extent they contain information provided by Munir's health care providers.⁷"

3. In footnote 7, on page 17, the following shall be added to the end of the footnote, after ". . . [discussing Civ. Code, § 56.10, subd. (b)(8)].)":

The Coroner's Office has argued, in a petition for rehearing, that medical information in the Investigation Report is protected under Civil Code section 56.10, subdivision (b)(8), and is thus exempt from disclosure under Government Code sections 7927.705, 7927.700, and 7922.000. ~(PFR at 7)~ Nothing in our opinion should be understood as holding otherwise. We expressly reserve that issue because we need not decide it; the trial court ordered that the entire Investigation Report, including any medical information in it, be disclosed to petitioners' representatives under a protective order, and the Coroner's Office did not seek review of that order. Petitioners, though, have successfully challenged that portion of the order that denies their CPRA petition in its entirety and requires judgment to enter in favor of the Coroner's Office based on the mistaken view that no portion of the Investigation Report is subject to release under the CPRA.

These modifications do not effect a change in the judgment.

Real Parties in Interest/Respondent's petition for rehearing is denied.

P.J.

* Tucher, P.J., Fujisaki, J., and Petrou, J. participated in the decision.