C IV 140929 CIV DS 1314338 M I SC 143402

Scanned Document Coversheet

System Code CIV

Case Number DS1314338

CaseType CIV THIS COVERSHEET IS FOR COURTAction Code MISC PURPOSES ONLY AND THIS IS NOTAction Date 09 29 14 A PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDActionTime 2 34 YOU WILL NOT BE CHARGED FORAction Seq 0002

TH I S PAG EPrinted by LMOWL

TRIAL COURT RULING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OFMANDATE INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY

RELIEF filed

NEWFILE

SUPERIOR COURT J

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

2SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER247 West Third Street P 2 1San Bernardino California 92415 r

3

4 1 y5

6

7

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAa

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTERs

10MAIA PAWOOSKAR

11

Plaintiff Case No CIVDS131433812VS

13REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL TRIAL COURT RULING ON PETITION

a DISTRICT and DOES 1 to 10 inclusive FOR WRIT OF MANDATE INJUNCTIONAND DECLATORY RELIEF

15Respondent Hon Bryan Foster

16 Department S 35Trial Date September 19 2014

17

18

19 I Backqround

20

On November 27 2013 Petitioner Maia Pawooskar filed this writ petition and complaint21

against Respondent District for violation of PRA and a taxpayer action to enjoin illegal22

expenditure of public funds Code Civ Proc 526a23

The Petition alleges the parties have a disagreement regarding Ms Pawooskar s minor24

25son s entitlement to certain special education services Petitioner believes the District was

26 spending a disproportionate amount of resources to resist her request for special education

27 services for her son leading to litigation In one action in which the District was represented by28 attorney Vivian R Billups Ms Billups submitted a declaration attesting that the District incurred

1

1425 00 for her work done for the District s opposition to Ms Pawooskar s request for a

2 continuance To investigate her concerns on March 27 2013 she submitted a PRA request to

3 Superintendent Lori Rhodes via email which included the following

a This is a request for records pursuant to the provisions of the California PublicRecords Act as amended Cal Gov Code 6250 et seq This is a request for

5 copies of all records prepared owned used or retained by Redlands UnifiedSchool District of the following

6

1 Minutes of the Board of Education Meeting held on March 12 2013These items were provided and are not at issue

s

2 Fiscal Year 2012 2013 Vendor Payables History for any and all legal9 service providers including but not limited to Vivian E Billups towards OAH 012050091

OAH 2O12061088 OAH 2O13020305 OAH 2O1303060210

3 Vendor Payables History for any and all legal service providers including but not11limited to Vivian E Billups and other Law firms that the District retained against my son

12 Som K Pawooskar DOB 2 17 1997 since his entry into Redlands Unified Schooldistrict in Fiscal Year 2000 to current Fiscal Year 2013 14

13

When petitioner did not receive a response she followed up by attending a Board of14

Education meeting on April 9 2013 and spoke during the public comment period alerting them15

to the failed response Petitioner sent copies of the original PRA request two more times16

The District responded on May 2 2013 indicating that it had conducted an extensive

search and that there were no responsive documents except for a single page invoice dated

s March 31 2012 showing charges of 153 25 from Ms Billups firm which was attached

20 Petitioner contacted the District to ask why there were no additional records e g records2

reflecting the 425 00 charge and was ultimately told to contact attorney Billups directly about22

her billing practices23

The District s May 2 2013 response denying possession of any attorney billing records24

was technically true However the reason there were no bills was because Redlands Unified25

2s School District was and is a participating member of the East Valley Special Education Local

2

28

2

Plan Area EVSELPA which handled the provision of legal services for special needs1

2lawsuits 1

3 At this point Ms Pawooskar hired counsel to assist her and on June 28 2013 attorney

a Kelly Aviles contacted the District on petitioner s behalf regarding the PRA request reiterating

5 the two requests for vendor payable history for legal service providers On July 2 2013

6Superintendent Rhodes responded that Ms Billups has not billed the RUSD for her services

nor has any attorney or law firm billed the District for legal services related to petitioner s PRAs

request

9

Attorney Aviles sent a second much more expansive PRA request to the District on July10

9 2013 which included eleven categories of documents and specifically requested in Item 311

12 All documents showing any agreement between Redlands Unified School District and any party

13 to provide legal services on behalf of Redlands Unified School District This includes but is not

14 limited to East Valley Special Education Local Plan Area 2

15 After requesting a fourteen day extension to respond the District indicated on August 216

2013 that it had an estimated 11 180 responsive pages of records and required Ms Pawooskar

to pay 2 795 00 for copies Petitioner objected to the 0 25 per page charge and indicated she

18

preferred to view the records instead The District responded by stating Ms Pawooskar could19

only review 164 paqes free of charge because the remaining 11 014 paqes incurred duplication20

costs of 2 753 50 to redact non disclosable information and petitioner needed to pay these21

22

23 1 EVSELPA is a consortium of participating member school districts in San Bernardino County formed to provideprograms and services to meet the needs of special education students It is overseen by a board of directors madeup of the participating school districts superintendents including Ms Rhodes EVSELPA provides legal support to

24 member school districts in due process cases filed by special education students by contracting with attorneys forrepresentation These attorneys represent its member school districts in the due process cases and then submit thei

25 invoices to the EVSELPA for processing and payment Despite Superintendent Rhodes knowledge that the legalservices provided on behalf of the District were provided by and paid by EVSELPA there is no mention of this entity

26 in any of the DistricYs responses to petitioner s PRA requests

2 2 On July 9 2013 petitioner submitted a PRA request to EVSELPA seeking the vendor payables history documentsi e invoices and remittance for any legal services provided to the District in the four OAH cases involving

28petitioners son The request was very similar to the original March 27 2013 PRA request to the District On August9 2013 EVSELPA responded to the request and provided petitioner with thirteen paqes of documents evidencing allexpenses it incurred for due process hearings during the 2011 2012 and 2012 2013 school years

3

copy costs before the District would allow her to view the redacted pages Petitioner refused1

2After several letters back and forth petitioner reviewed the non privileged documents on

3 October 9 2013

a On October 31 2013 Ms Pawooskar submitted a third PRA request to the District

5 related to a more recent administrative hearing The District indicated petitioner could inspect

6seventeen pages but the remaining 23 pages needed to be redacted and copying costs would

be 4 60 at a reduced rate of 0 20 per page Petitioner viewed the four pages available of

s

the seventeen pages referenced and paid for copies of the redacted copies under protest ons

November 14 2013 She contends however no legal basis exists for the redactions and that10

the copy costs asserted by the District exceeded the direct costs authorized by Section 625311

12subdivision b

13 The present petition was filed November 27 2013 Petitioner contends the mandatory

14 charge to view redacted copies is unauthorized under the statute and that there is no basis for

15 the 0 25 per page copy cost An opposition and reply were filed and argument was heard on16

September 19 2014 after which the matter was taken under submission

17II Controllinq Authoritv Writ of Mandate

18

Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 subdivision a grants any court the power to19

issue a writ of mandate to any inferior tribunal corporation board or person to compel the20

performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office trust21

22 or station or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to

23 which the party is entitled and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by such inferior

24 tribunal corporation board or person The writ must be issued in cases where fhere is no

25 plain speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Code Civ Proc 1086

26If an agency acts in its ordinary legislative authority review of its action is by ordinary

27

mandamus That is the court confines itself to a determination of whether the agency s action2s

is arbitrary capricious or entirely lacking in evidentiary support Shapell Industries Inc v

4

Governing Board 1991 1 Cal App 4th 218 230 citing Strumsky v San Diego County1

2Employees Retirement Assn 1974 11 Cal 3d 506 514 15

3 Although arbitrary and capricious has no precise meaning courts have indicated it

a includes conduct that is not supported by a fair or substantial reason or a stubborn insistence on

5 following an unauthorized course of action A B C Federation of Teachers v A B C Unified

6 Schoo Dist 1977 75 Cal App 3d 332 343 Madonna v County of San Louis Obispo 1974 39

Cal App 3d 57 61 62 Stewart v State Personnel 8oard 1967 250 Cal App 2d 445 447s

An agency s action lacks evidentiary support if its decision is not supported by9

substantial evidence Taylor Bus Serv v San Diego Board of Educ 1987 195 Cal App 3d10

1331 1340 As the California Supreme Court stated Substantial evidence is not any evidenc11

12it must be reasonable in nature credible and of solid value Hill v National Collegiate

13 AthleticAssn 1994 7 Cal 4th 1 51

14 A Judicial Notice

15 ludicial notice is the court s recognition of the existence of a matter of law or fact

16Without the necessity of formal proof See Evid Code 450 et seq Ju dicial notice is

17better described as a substitute for formal proof a judicial shortcut a doing away with the

18formal necessity for evidence Gravert v DeLuse 1970 6 Cal App 3d 576 580 Varcoe v

19

Lee 1919 180 Cal 338 34420

Petitioner seeks judicial notice of numerous documents including a California Attorney21

22General Opinion Exh EE the Attorney General s Summary of the PRA Exh FF the

23 California Department of Justice s Guidelines for Access to Public Records Exh GG the City

2a of Redlands Unified School District Polices and Redland City s Resolution Staff Report Exhs

25 AA DD various Legislative Acts related to S B 143 Kopp Exh II and an Arizona Attorney26

General s Opinion dealing with a similar issue Exh HH27

Although these items have limited value to the analysis there is no objection and judicial28 notice is granted

5

III California Public Records Act PRA1

2Government Code section 62503 provides that the Legislature mindful of the right of

3 individuals finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the

a people s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state See a so

5 Filarsky v Superior Court 2002 28 Cal4t

419 425 The CPRA was enacted for the

6purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to

information in the possession of public agencies Similarly California Constitution Art Is

3 b 1 provides The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of9

the people s business and therefore the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public10

officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny11

12 To implement the right set forth above the PRA provides that public records are open to

13 inspection during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to

14 inspect any public record 6253 subd a Additionally unless exempt from disclosure by

15 an express provision of law each state or local agency upon a request for a copy of records16

that reasonably describes an idenfifiable record or records shall make the records promptly17

available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication or a statutory18

fee if applicable Upon request an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so19

6253 subd b The procedure upon a request for disclosure of a public record4 is set forth20

in Section 6253 subdivision c21

22 Generally all public records are subject to disclosure unless the PRA expressly

23 provides otherwise American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v Superior Court

24 2011 202 Cal App4th

55 66 Legislative policy favors disclosure Nothing in the PRA25 shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of26

records 6253 subd d

273 All further statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise noted4 Public records mean any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public s business prepared28owned used or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics 6252 subde

6

Moreover under Section 6253 1 subdivision a when a person requests to inspect a1

2 public record or obtain a copy of the public record the agency should assist the member to

3 make a focused and effective request Such is accomplished by the public agency to extent

a reasonable under the circumstances assisting the member in identifying records and

5 information that are responsive to the request or the purpose of the request describing the

6information technology and physical location in which records exist and providing suggestions

Yp Y 9to overcome an ractical basis for den in access 6253 1 subd a 1 3

8

If a public agency fails to comply or claims an exemption the requestor may institute as proceeding for injunction declaratory relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent

jurisdiction to enforce his her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record 6258o The government agency opposing disclosure under PRA bears the burden of providing that one

or more exemption applies ACLU of Northern California supra 202 Cal App 4th at p 6711

12 ISSUES PRESENTED

13 In the present writ of mandate petitioner contends the District s policies violate the

14 California Public Records Act because 1 the District has no right to demand payment for

15 copies in order for the public to inspect records 2 the 0 25 per page copy charge exceeds16

the direct cost of duplication and 3 the District has notjustified its claim that any of the17

requested documents require redaction at the petitioner s expense or otherwise Petitioner

18

contends the District s policies violate both the PRA and Civil Code section 526a wasteful19

government action challenge20

Both sides represent to the court that this is an issue of first impression Stated simply21

22 the primary issue is whether a public agency may pass the cost of redaction on to a party

23 wishing to view public records under Section 6253 subdivision a Additionally is the charge

2a of 0 25 per page for making copies reasonable

25 A Statutorv Interpretation Standard

26As set forth in People v Bhasin 2009 176 Cal App 4th 461 this court has precise rules

27

to follow in statutory interpretation2s

7

I n construing a statute a court must ascertain the intent of the Legislature soas to effectuate the purpose of the law Citation People v Coronado 1995

212 Cal 4th 145 151 In determining that intent we first examine the words ofthe statute applying their usual ordinary and common sense meaning based

g upon the language used and the evident purpose for which the statute wasadopted People v Granderson 1998 67 Cal App 4th 703 707 quoting In

a re Rojas 1979 23 Cal 3d 152 155 J If there is no ambiguity in the languageof the statute then the Legislature is presumed to have meant what it said and

5 the plain meaning of the language governs Citation Where the statute is

clear courts will not interpret away clear language in favor of an ambiguity that6 does not exist Citation Citation Coronado at p 151 If the words of the

statute are ambiguous a court may resort to extrinsic sources including theostensible objects to be achieved and the legislative history Ibid Applyingthese rules of statutory interpretation a court must select the construction thatcomports most closely with the apparent intent of the Legislature with a view to

s promoting rather than defeating the general purpose of the statute and avoid aninterpretation that would lead to absurd consequences Citation Ibid

10

People v Bhasin supra 176 Cal App 4th at p 46911

12 In the present case this court is guided not only by the language of the statute

13 but by our state s highest authority as well the California Constitution As explained in

14 BRV Inc v Superior Court 2006 143 Cal App 4th 742

15 In 2004 California voters approved Proposition 59 which enshrined in our state

16Constitution the public s right to access records of public agencies Cal Const

17art I 3 subd b The amendment requires the Public Records Act to be

18

broadly construed if it furthers the people s right of access and narrowly19

construed if it limits the right of access Cal Const art I 3 subd b par20

2 Such was the law prior to the amendment s enactment California State21

22 University Fresno Assn Inc v Superior Court 2001 90 Cal App 4th 810 831

z3 l

2a BRV lnc supra 143 Cal App 4th at pp 750 751

25 The relevant portion of our state Constitution providesZs

b

27 1 The people have the right of access to information concerning the conductof the people s business and therefore the meetings of public bodies and the

28 writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny

8

2 A statute court rule or other authority including those in effect on theeffective date of this subdivision shall be broadly construed if it furthers the

2 people s right of access and narrowly construed if it limits the riqht of access Astatute court rule or other authority adopted after the effective date of this

3 subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings

demonstrating the interest protected by fhe limitation and the need forprotectinga that interest

5 Cal Const art I 3 subd b all emphases added

6Under the foregoing the intent of the California PRA is crystal clear when in doubt the

court is to err on the side of the people s right of access and any attempt to limit access suchs

as requiring the people to pay a public agency to make copies in order to redact information9

before permitting free viewing of the documents must not only be narrowly construed but10

also must have express findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the11

12need for protecting that interest Cal Const art I 3 subd b

13

14 Violation of California Public Records Act Issue 1

15 Charqe to VIEW Redacted Copies of Records

sThe main argument focuses upon the District s demand for petitioner to pay copy costs

17in order to view redacted records The petition does not challenge the claims of privilege or

18

exempt material asserted by the District with respect to the records requiring redaction 519

20

5 In justifying the need to redact information and charge the petitioner for copies the District cites to Section 625421 which enumerates dozens of specific records exempt from disclosure and then references the general catch all

provision of Section 6255 which applies to any record where the public interest served by not making the record22

public clearly outweighs the public interest served by its disclosure However the District never indicates which ofthe dozens categories are triggered by the PRA request Because of the strong public policy in favor of disclosure

23 of public records such records must be disclosed unless they come within one or more of the categories ofdocuments exempt from compelled disclosure 6254 These exemptions are construed narrowly and the burdenis on the public agency to show that the records should not be disclosed Rogers v Superior Court 1993 19

24 Cal App 4th 469 476 footnote omitted citing San Gabriel Tribune v Superior Court 1983 143 Cal App 3d 762773 1

25 In support of its right to redact the District cites to American Civil Liberties Union ofNorthem Califomia v Deukmejia2011 202 Cal App 4th 55 and State Board of Equalization v Superior Court 1992 10 Cal App 4th 1177 both of

26 which acknowledge the existence of procedures used when documents or portions of documents are withheld fromdisclosure A strict burden is placed upon the agency to justify nondisclosure because the effect of an agency s claim

27of an exemption means that information is withheld from the public A C L U v Deukmejian supra 202 Cal App

4tn

at pp 84 85 Although government agencies are entitled to a presumption of reasonable and good faith compliancewith PRA requests id at p 85 this presumption is tempered by the statutory duties placed upon the agencies and28the need for compliance to be shown

9

The District indicated that the only way to accomplish the redaction i e segregation of1

2 material exempted from disclosure was to make copies of the pages containing both

3 disclosable and non disclosable information As the redaction required copies and it is

a permissible to charge for copies under Section 6253 subdivision b the District contends its

5 policy of requiring the petitioner to pay to view the redacted copies of records was authorized

6 under the PRA

7Petitioner disagrees arguing the DistricYs policy violates the intent of the PRA and

s

specifically Section 6253 subdivision a which was to provide a no cost alternative to citizens9

wishing to review public records in lieu of purchasing copies as provided under subdivision b10

By instituting a pay per view procedure for viewing redacted copies the District has effectively11

12eliminated subdivision a s no cost option

13 The two provisions at issue are found in Section 6253 subdivisions a and b which

14 provide

15 a Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of thestate or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record16except as hereafter provided Any reasonably segregable portion of a recordshall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record afterdeletion of the portions that are exempted by law

18

b Except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express19 provisions of law each state or local agency upon a request for a copy of

records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records shall make20 the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering

direct costs of duplication or a statutory fee if applicable Upon request an21exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so

22Bold added

23

As Section 6253 subdivision a is intended to provide the public open access to24

an agency s records it should be broadly construed to further that access not the25

contrary Furthermore our Constitution admonishes that if this court were to issue a26

27 decision limiting access eg by requiring payment of copy costs to view records such a

28 holding would require findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and

10

the need for protecting that interest Cal Const art I 3 subd b 2 This is a1

2 heavy burden

3 Upon learning of the volume of documents and increased cost for copies petitioner

a indicated she would prefer to view inspect the 11 180 responsive records instead obtaining

5 copies In short petitioner switched her request from one made under Section 6253

6subdivision b copies of documents to one made under Section 6253 subdivision a viewing

documents This is the free option 6 Section 6253 subdivision a does not provide for any8

payment of costs7

9

Here petitioner is not requesting copies of the records hence Section 6253 subdivision10

b is not at issue The District s reliance on this provision to authorize copy costs is misguided11

12 The unambiguous language of the statute shows it is inapplicable to the present case

13 The District cites several decisions holding that a public agency s duty to provide public

14 records may require redaction even though such redaction may impose a burden upon the

15 agency See e g A C L U v Deukmejian supra 202 Cal App 4th 55 State Bd ofEqualization

sv SuperiorCourt supra 10 Cal App 4th 1177 A C L U v Deukmejian 1982 32 Cal 3d 440

17

It contends that the threshold question to be made on a case by case basis is whether the18

burden and cost of preparing and redacting documents is so onerous as to outweigh the public19

interest in disclosure citing Northern California Police Practices Project v Craig 1979 9020

Cal App 3d 116 However none of the District s cases hold the petitioner should pay for the21

22costs of redaction which in this case includes copy costs In fact the Craig court expressly

23 stated the burden of separating exempt material before making documents available for public

2a inspection would be charged to the public entities until the Legislature addressed the matter

25 We conclude that where nonexempt materials are not inextricably intertwinedwith exempt materials and are otherwise reasonably segregable therefrom26

2 6 See California Attorney General Summary of California Public Records Act Exh EE pp 4 57 Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and everyperson has a right to inspect any public record except as hereafter provided Any reasonably segregable portion of a28record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that areexempted by law 6253 subd a

11

segregation is required to serve the objective of the PRA to make public

records available for public inspection and copying unless a particular statute2

makes them exempt Cook v Craig supra 55 Cal App 3d at p 783

3 Undoubtedly the requirement of segregation casts a tangible burden ongovernmental agencies and the judiciary Nothing less will suffice however if

a the underlying legislative policy of the PRA favoring disclosure is to beimplemented faithfully If the burden becomes too onerous relief must be

5 sought from the Legislature

6Craig supra 90 Cal App 3d at p 124 bold added

7

Under the Craig court s reasoning the District s chosen process of making copies in8

order to redact exempt information would be part of the segregation cost borne by the District9

prior to making a document available for public inspection The Craig court commented it was10

up to the Legislature to address the costs and burdens placed upon public agencies In the11

12 ensuing thirty five years our Legislature has expanded the public s right of access and

13 increased the responsibilities of the public agencies including curtailing their ability to seek

14 reimbursement for costs through fees As noted in 1994 the trend has been to limit rather

15 than to broaden the base upon which the fee may be calculated North County Parents16

Organization for Children with Special Needs v Department of Education 1994 23 Cal App 4th

144 147 8

18

In view of this trend the District s argument that the public must help carry the financial19

burden and pay a fee to view documents which the public entity contends have segregable20

disclosable and non disclosable information is not supportable21

22 District also argues it would be overly burdensome for it to comply with the PRA

23 requests unless it were permitted to recoup its direct copy costs associated with the redaction

2a efforts and contends it could deny petitioner s request to inspect altogether on the basis that

25 redacting over 11 000 pages of documents was so onerous as to clearly outweigh public26 interest in disclosure A C L U v Deukmejian supra 32 Cal 3d at 452 However our27

28 8 The facts of this case are discussed in detail in Argument C 25 Per Page Copy Fee Direct Costs ofDuplication infra

12

Legislature has not shifted restricted public access to public records despite decades of case1

2 law acknowledging significant burdens such access places on the agencies

3 It should also be noted the District has an obligation under Section 6253 1 to assistmembers of the public to make focused and effective requests To the extent the PRA requests

a elicited over 11 000 pages of mostly exempt documents assistance with making more focusedrequests is indicated and ordered by the court

5

California Public Records Act Issue 26

70 25 Per Paqe Copv Fee Direct Costs of Duplication

The second issue addresses the 0 25 per page copy fee Petitioner claims the fee is

s excessive and exceeds the direct costs of duplication the District is permitted to charge under

o Government Code section 6253 subdivision b 9 Prior to the filing of this writ petition the only11

explanation for the fee was the District s counsel s statement that the 0 25 sum was based on

12experience

13

The District the offered to reduce this amount to 0 20 per page due to the high volume14

of responsive documents over 11 000 but then also applied the discounted rate to the 2315

copies provided in response to petitioner s October 31 2013 PRA request leaving the basis for16

the high volume discount unclear

Petitioner challenges the copy charge amount because previously the District charged

19 her 0 10 per page for copies of her son s records The District explained in correspondence to

20 petitioner it has established a charge of 0 25 per page for copies of non student records and a21

charge of 0 10 per page for parents requesting copies of student records for their children22

Petitioner contends the increased cost for PRA copies is not supported She is correct23

The law is clear only direct costs of copying are recoverable under Section 625324

subdivision b In North County Parents Organization v Department of Education supra 2325

26

9 b Except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law each state or local27 agency upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records shall make

the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication or a28

statutory fee if applicable Upon request an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so Boldadded

Both sides agree that there is no statutory fee applicable here

13

Cal App 4th 144 the court traced the Legislature s use of direct cosY in Section 6257 the1

2precursor to 6253 and explained t he direct cost of duplication is the cost of running the copy

3 machine and conceivably also the expense of the person operating it Direct cost does not

4 include the ancillary tasks necessarily associated with the retrieval inspection and handling of

5 the file from which the copy is extracted North County Parents supra 23 Cal App 4th at p

6 148

7As shown above the record contains correspondence showing the District charges

s

0 10 per page to make copies of student records The only evidence provided by the District ts

support an increase in the cost for making copies from 0 10 to 0 25 appears in the declaration10

of Brad Mason the Assistant Superintendent of Business Services of Redlands Unified School11

12 District who claims to be familiar with the copy costs associated with PRA requests and states

13 5 Public Records Act requests submitted to the District are processed by senior

14 classified manaqement staff in the District s Business Services Human

15 Resources and Educational Services Department as well as the

16 Superintendent s Office B ased on an averaqe of these staff members salaries

17

the per copv cost associated with operatinq the District s photocopv machines18

in order to make coqies of documents is 0 19 per paqe This rate does not19

include the time expended by these staff members in retrieving redacting and20

storing records gathered in response to Public Records Act requests Underline21

22 added

23

The DistricYs use of senior classified management staff serves no purpose except24

possibly to assist with the inspection of the documents to ascertain what material may be25exempt from disclosure and require redaction This is an ancillary task for which payment is not26

27 recoverable North County Parents supra 23 Cal App 4th at p 148 Under North County

28 Parents the only fee available is for the person standing at the copy machine feeding the

14

copies refilling the paper as needed and addressing paperjams e g operating it Id This1

2does not require a senior employee 10

3 The District is obligated to provide evidence that is reasonable in nature credible and

a of solid value Hill v National Collegiate Athlefic Assn supra 7 Cal 4th at p 51 This has not

5 been done with respect to the 0 25 per page charge The only basis for the increase in direct

6costs between the 0 10 student records and 0 25 PRA records shown by the evidence is the

identity of the individuals making the copies As using specialized employees to make copies iss

analogous to performing an ancillary task for which payment is not recoverable under the PRA9

North County Parents supra 23 Cal App 4th at p 148 the District has not supported its policy10

of charging 0 25 per page for PRA copies by substantial or credible evidence Hill v National11

12Collegiate Athletic Assn supra 7 Cal 4th at p 51 Consequently the District s policy cannot

13 stand It is therefore ordered to cease charging 0 25 per page per copy for PRA requests

14 under Section 6253 subdivision b and to instead charge the 0 10 direct cost of duplication

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

10 The District also failed to support the 0 06 non labor materials charge for copies Mr Mason s declaration lacked27 factual support and was rebutted by petitioner s evidentiary showing of paper costs toner yields etc which resulted

is a significantly lower number 0 0128 However contrary to petitioner s representation the purchase price of

28 copy machines was not excluded by the North County Parents court and such costs depreciated over time appearappropriate to include as part of the direct costs These purchase charges depreciation rates were not included inpetitioner s calculations

15

1ORDER

2To Redlands Unified School District Respondent

3 1 You are hereby ordered to immediately cease the following policies which violate the

a California Public Records Act Government Code sections 6250 et seq

5 a charging any fees for members of the public to view records including those

6 requiring redactions requested under Government Code section 6253 subdivision a

b charging fees in excess of the 0 10 direct cost per copy for copies of publics

records requested under Government Code section 6253 subdivision b9

2 You are further ordered to meet and confer with petitioner in accordance with10

Government Code 6253 1 with respect to the responsive records to petitioner s March 27 201311

12 and July 9 2013 PRA requests after which you

13 a Shall make available all remaining requested responsive records including

14 redacted copies for viewing at no charge pursuant to Government Code section 6253

15 subdivision a

sb Reimburse petitioner the copy costs paid in excess of 0 10 per page for the

17

October 31 2013 PRA request 23 pages paid @ 0 20 per page18

c Pay petitioner attorneys fees and costs subject to a noticed motion19

20

2 Dated this 29th day of September 2014

22

23

24

Honorable ryan F Foster25

Judge of the Superior Court26

27

28

16