The California Public Records Act [Government Code section 6250 et seq.] provides that “a party” may file a petition for the issuance of an extraordinary writ to challenge an order of the trial court either directing or refusing disclosure under the Act. A group which advocates for open government successfully moved for the trial court to order disclosure of emails from the personal account of a city attorney pertaining to official business over a five year period. The court order was made despite the fact the trial judge did not view the documents in camera. A nonparty, an association of 473 California cities and their public officials, sought extraordinary relief because the trial court’s order of disclosure might have an impact on cities statewide. The open government group argued the association of cities and public officials have no standing since their group is not a party in the underlying action. The Court of Appeal ruled the term “a party” as used in the Public Records Act is not limited to an actual party in the action, and further ordered the trial court to view the documents in camera. (League of California Cities v. Sup. Ct. (San Diegans For Open Government) (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1; October 28, 2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 976.)Personal Email Account Used For Public Business…Why Does That Sound Familiar?
The California Public Records Act [Government Code section 6250 et seq.] provides that “a party” may file a petition for the issuance of an extraordinary writ to challenge an order of the trial court either directing or refusing disclosure under the Act. A group which advocates for open government successfully moved for the trial court to order disclosure of emails from the personal account of a city attorney pertaining to official business over a five year period. The court order was made despite the fact the trial judge did not view the documents in camera. A nonparty, an association of 473 California cities and their public officials, sought extraordinary relief because the trial court’s order of disclosure might have an impact on cities statewide. The open government group argued the association of cities and public officials have no standing since their group is not a party in the underlying action. The Court of Appeal ruled the term “a party” as used in the Public Records Act is not limited to an actual party in the action, and further ordered the trial court to view the documents in camera. (League of California Cities v. Sup. Ct. (San Diegans For Open Government) (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 1; October 28, 2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 976.)