GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

If any party requests oral argument, then at the time the request is made, the requesting party must inform the court and the opposing party of the specific issue(s) or categories of documents on which oral argument is sought.

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 05/29/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 16B

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On December 8, 2023, Petitioner submitted a request pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“PRA”) to Respondent seeking “copies of correspondence, and any accompanying information, including any attachments:

a) Sent to or from or copying (whether as cc: or bcc:) i) Nick Campins (Deputy Attorney General, Bureau of Environmental Justice), ii) Heather Lewis (Deputy Attorney General, Environment Section), and/or iii) Hon. Steven S. Cliff (Executive Officer), that b) Includes anywhere, whether as sent to or from or copying (again whether as cc: or bc:), or otherwise, i) @sunflower-alliance.org, ii) @climateintegrity.org, iii) @corporateaccountability.org, iv) @seachange.org, and/or v) @theclimateregistry.org, and is c) Dated from March 1, 2023 through December 8, 2023, inclusive.”

(Flaherty Decl., Exh. 2)(emphasis in original.)

On December 20, 2023, Petitioner submitted a second PRA request to Respondent, seeking “copies of all correspondence, and any accompanying information, including also any attachments:

a) Sent to or from or copying (whether as cc: or bcc:) i) Jessica Gordon, and/or ii) Heather Lewis (Deputy Attorney General, Environment Section, that

b) Includes anywhere, whether as sent to or from or copying (again whether as cc: or bcc:), or otherwise, @biologicaldiversity.org, and is

c) Dated from March 1, 2023 through December 20, 2023, inclusive.”

(Flaherty Decl., Exh. 4)(emphasis in original.)

On December 26, 2023, Petitioner submitted a third PRA request to Respondent, seeking “copies of all correspondence, and any accompanying information, including also any attachments:

a) Sent to or from or copying (whether as cc: or bcc:) Jessica Gordon, that b) Includes anywhere, whether as sent to or from or copying (again whether as cc: or bcc:), or otherwise, i) @democracyforward.org, ii) @apen4ej.org, iii) @cbecal.org, iv) @law.harvard.edu, v) @catf.us, and/or vi) @caleja.org, and is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 05/29/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 16B

c) Dated from March 1, 2023 through December 26, 2023, inclusive.”

(Flaherty Decl., Exh. 6)(emphasis in original.)

On December 29, 2023, Petitioner submitted a fourth PRA request to Respondent, seeking “copies of all correspondence, and any accompanying information, including also any attachments:

a) Sent to or from or copying (whether as cc: or bcc:) Heather Lewis (Deputy Attorney General, Environment Section), that b) Includes anywhere, i) “Center for Climate Integrity”, and/or ii) the following link https://climateintegrity-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_eNlpQsDiRYigqjkaF8- oow#/registration, and is c) Dated from October 17, 2023 through October 20, 2023, inclusive.”

(Flaherty Decl., Exh. 9)(emphasis in original.)

On January 3, 2024, Petitioner submitted a fifth PRA request to Respondent, seeking, “copies of all correspondence, and any accompanying information, including also any attachments, a) Sent to or from or copying (whether as cc: or bcc:) Sonia F. Ramos that b) Includes anywhere, in any field or the body of an email/email ‘thread’, i) @sunflower-alliance.org, ii) @climateintegrity.org iii) @corporateaccountability.org, iv) @apen4ej.org, v) @cbecal.org, vi) @catf.us, vii) @biologicaldiversity.org, vii), viii) @caleja.org and/or ix) @democracyforward.org, and is c) Dated from March 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, inclusive.”

(Flaherty Decl., Exh. 11)(emphasis in original.)

On April 12, 2024, Petitioner submitted a sixth PRA request to Respondent, seeking “copies of all correspondence, and any accompanying information, including also any attachments,

a) Sent to or from or copying (whether as cc: or bcc:) i) Jessica Gordon, ii) Heather Lewis, iii) Lara Maxey and/or iv) Ed Ochoa, that b) Includes anywhere, in any field or the body of an email/email ‘thread’, @bos.cccounty.us and is c) Dated from i) March 10, 2023 through April 10, 2023, inclusive, ii) the week of July 3-7, 2023, and/or dated from iii) September 17, 2023 through December 17,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 05/29/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 16B

2023, inclusive.”

(Flaherty Decl., Exh. 13)(emphasis in original.)

Also on April 12, 2024, Petitioner submitted a seventh PRA request to Respondent, seeking “copies of all

a) i) calendars, and ii) call logs kept for Jessica Gordon, which b) Are for i) March 10, 2023 through April 10, 2023, inclusive, ii) the week of July 3- 7, 2023, and/or dated from iii) September 17, 2023 through December 17, 2023, inclusive.”

(Flaherty Decl., Exh. 15)(emphasis in original.)

On June 24, 2024, Petitioner submitted an eighth PRA request to Respondent, seeking “copies of all correspondence, and any accompanying information, including also any attachments,

a) Sent to or from or copying (whether as cc: or bcc:) Jessica Gordon, and/or Sonia F. Ramos, that b) includes anywhere, in any field or the body of an email/email ‘thread’ or any attachment thereto, i) Maienschien, ii) AB 1366 (or AB1366), iii) disgorge (in any usage, so this includes, e.g., disgorgement), iv) Boulder and/or v) Forsythe, and is c) dated from April 1, 2023 through September 30, 2023.

(Flaherty Decl., Exh. 17)(emphasis in original.) In response to these requests, Respondent produced over 150 records, and withheld approximately 500 documents, asserting specific privileges and exemptions.

Petitioner now seeks a writ of mandate and declaratory relief. The parties agree that Respondent has released certain responsive records; however, Petitioner maintains that Respondent has improperly withheld a large volume of records.

II. Standard of Review

Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 permits the issuance of a writ of mandate “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins.” The writ will lie where the petitioner has no plain, speedy and adequate alternative remedy, the respondent has a clear, present and usually ministerial duty to perform, and the petitioner has a clear, present and beneficial right to performance.” (Sacramento County Alliance of Law Enforcement v. County of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 05/29/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 16B

Sacramento (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1020.) “Two basic requirements are essential to the issuance of the writ. (1) A clear, present and usually ministerial duty upon the part of the respondent; and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right in the petitioner to the performance of that duty.” (Shamsian v. Dept. of Conservation (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 621, 640)(citations omitted.)

III.

Discussion

A. The Public Records Act

Effective January 1, 2023, the legislature re-codified the PRA within the Government Code. However, section 7920.100, provides that the recodification did not: “substantively change the law relating to inspection of public records. The act is intended to be entirely nonsubstantive in effect. Every provision of this division and every other provision of this act, including, without limitation, every cross-reference in every provision of the act, shall be interpreted consistent with the nonsubstantive intent of the act.” Accordingly, case law interpreting the PRA remains as applicable today as it did before the subject recodification. (Gov. Code § 7920.110.)

The PRA (Gov. Code §7920.00 et seq.[1]) provides that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (§ 7921.000) Public records are to be open to inspection and “any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.” (§ 7922.525.) “Given the strong public policy of the people's right to information concerning the people's business [], and the constitutional mandate to construe statutes limiting the right of access narrowly (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(2)), “all public records are subject to disclosure unless the Legislature has expressly provided to the contrary. [Citation.]” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 617.)

Several categories of documents are exempt from PRA disclosure. However, disclosure is favored, and a long line of cases directs that any exemption from disclosure must be narrowly construed. (See, e.g., Dixon v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1271, 1275-1276.) Further, “[t]he agency opposing disclosure bears the burden of proving that an exemption applies.” (ACLU of N. California v. Superior Court (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 67; accord Golden Door Properties, LLC v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 733, 789 [“‘The entity attempting to deny access has the burden of proof’ to demonstrate that the claimed exemption applies. [Citation.]”.)

Inherent in the PRA is a recognition that the public’s trust is fundamental to the American democratic process. “Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 05/29/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 16B

democracy.” (International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, ALF- CIO et al. v. Superior Court of Alameda County (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319, 328.) “Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions. In order to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process.” (CBS, Inc. v. Sherman Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 651.)

B. Requests at issue

In support of its argument that it withheld certain records pursuant to PRA and/or evidentiary exemptions, Respondent provided the Court with a 51-page log identifying the date of the specific PRA request, the recipients and senders of the subject emails, the claimed exemptions, and a brief description of each record. Respondent has also provided declarations from Jessica Gordon, Erin Ganahl, Laura Stuber, and Laura A. Randles-Little regarding the search for responsive documents, redactions made, and bases for withholding the records identified in the exemption log.

The Court has reviewed each of the 511 entries in the exemption log, as well as the supporting declarations. Although Petitioners argue that Respondent has mischaracterized the nature of several records, and that Respondent could have, or should have, provided additional detail in the exemption log explaining the nature of each individual record and the basis for the particular exemption, in analyzing the sufficiency of an agency’s showing for withholding records, the Court finds the detailed information provided by Respondent is sufficient for this Court to conclude that the subject documents were properly withheld and the exemptions properly invoked. Further, while the Court is aware of its authority to order Respondent to submit the withheld responsive documents for in camera review. The Court finds such review unnecessary based upon Respondent’s showing.[2]a

IV.

Conclusion

The petition for writ of mandate is DENIED.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In the event that this tentative ruling becomes the final ruling of the Court, in accordance with Local Rule 1.06, Respondent’s counsel is directed to prepare an order denying the petition, incorporating this ruling as an exhibit to the order, and a judgment; submit them to opposing counsel for approval as to form in accordance with CRC 3.1312(a); and thereafter submit them to the Court for signature and entry in accordance with CRC 3.1312(b).

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 05/29/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 16B

[1] Further undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. [2] If there are limited discrete categories of documents that Petitioner believes the Court should review in camera,

Petitioner’s counsel should be prepared to identify those at oral argument. The Court may be willing to undertake such a limited in camera review in the first instance. In endeavoring to identify categories of documents, counsel should be sensitive to the Court’s limited resources in undertaking such a review. The Court notes that it will not perform in camera review of any document for which the attorney-client communication privilege is asserted. (See Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 737-740.)