Facts

Tracy Towner was hired by the Ventura District Attorney's (DA) office as an investigator in 1997. In 2014, he was promoted to investigative commander. Three years later, he testified before the County's Civil Service Commission in an action involving another investigator from the Ventura DA's office. Although the Commission found his testimony reliable, the Ventura DA's office started an independent investigation into Towner's Commission hearing testimony. The investigation found that Towner had testified falsely at the hearing resulting in Towner's termination by the Ventura DA. Towner appealed the termination and requested a hearing before the Commission. The County then filed a petition for writ and requested that the court enjoin the Commission from hearing Towner's appeal because of a conflict of interest since the Commission had previously found the testimony underlying his termination to be credible. After hearing Towner's appeal, the Commission ordered his reinstatement with back pay and benefits. Towner then sued the County for, among others, negligence per se and violations of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA). As to the negligence per se claim, Towner alleged the County violated Penal Code Section 832.7 by publicly disclosing his confidential personnel records without appropriate judicial review (that is without bringing a Pitchess motion). As to the POBRA claim, Towner alleged the County intentionally publicly disclosed his confidential personnel records in violation of multiple provisions of the Government Code. The County moved to strike Towner's POBRA and negligence per se claims under California's anti-SLAPP statute, which allows for the early dismissal of cases that curb constitutionally-protected speech. The trial court granted the County's motion to strike, finding that the County's writ petition and exhibits fell within the anti-SLAPP statute's scope because they were written statements submitted in a judicial proceeding. The trial court also found that Towner failed to show a probability of success on the merits because not only was the County's conduct protected by the litigation privilege, but also neither POBRA nor Penal Code Section 832.7 provided a private right of action based on the disclosure of confidential personnel records. Towner appealed.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Appellant Tracy Towner argued that the anti-SLAPP statute did not apply because the County's disclosure of his confidential personnel records was illegal. He contended that the County violated Section 832.7 by disclosing his confidential personnel records without submitting the documents to the statutorily prescribed judicial review. Though a violation of that section is not a crime, Towner noted that the County's failure to comply with it was against the law under Government Code Section 1222. That section makes a public officer's "willful omission to perform any duty enjoined by law" a misdemeanor.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant County of Ventura argued that the conduct that gave rise to Towner's POBRA and Section 832.7 claims--the public disclosure of Towner's confidential personnel records--derived from protected activity because the filings constituted written statements made before judicial proceeding authorized by the law.

Result

Under a settlement, Towner was reinstated and received back pay and other funds totaling $1.8 million.

Other Information

The Court of Appeal held that the County willfully failed to treat Towner's personnel documents as confidential by intentionally filing them as exhibits in the writ proceeding. It noted that since the County's actions violated both Penal Code Section 832.7 and Government Code Section 1222, Towner adequately showed that the County's conduct was illegal as a matter of law and therefore not protected activity under the anti-SLAPP statute.