Facts

The ACLU of Southern California and Eric Preven brought a petition for writ of mandate against the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors and the Office of County Counsel.

PETITIONERS' CONTENTIONS:
Petitioners alleged that they submitted a California Public Records Act request to respondents for certain categories of documents, including attorney billing statements, relating to certain lawsuits stemming from excessive-force allegations against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. Petitioners also alleged they requested documents, including a certain agreement with a third party, relating to respondent's plan to reform its jail system. Petitioners further alleged that respondent's sent some documents responding to the requests that were heavily redacted and failed to include other requested documents. Petitioners argued that respondents should disclose all of the records that were requested.

RESPONDENTS' CONTENTIONS:
Respondents argued that the requested billing statements should be withheld from disclosure because they were protected as confidential communications. Respondents further argued that a certain agreement relating to the plan to reform the jail system was a confidential written fee agreement

Result

The court granted the petition for writ of mandate in part and directed respondents to disclose certain billing statements related to the excessive force lawsuits with only certain limited redactions, including an attorney's legal opinion or advice. The court denied the remainder of the petition, including the request for the agreement related to the prison reform plan, since respondents demonstrated it was an agreement to allow an attorney to provide legal services.

Other Information

On June 30, 2014, the county parties filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Court of Appeal. The petition challenges the Superior Court's determinations that the attorney-billing records requested are not subject to the attorney-client privilege and are not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. On September 18, 2014, the court issued an Order To Show Cause why the county's petition should or should not be granted. The court is scheduled to hear argument on January 14, 2015. On June 13, 2014, the ACLU parties filed a Motion For Reconsideration Based On New Evidence as to Judge Lavin's June 5 ruling that the agreement between the county and attorney Richard Drooyan is subject to the attorney-client privilege. On September 18, Judge Lavin denied the motion, ruling that the ACLU parties "have not met their burden" to provide "both newly discovered evidence and an explanation for the failure to have produced such evidence earlier." The ruling also stated that even if the newly discovered evidence had been considered, it would not have changed the court's decision on June 5.