Trial Court’s Award Of $45,472 To Times Under PRA Affirmed On Appeal, With Times Now Getting To Seek Reasonable Fees Against Officers/Police Union Under CCP § 1021.5.
Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena, Case No. B275566 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 12, 2018) (published) was a situation where the L.A. Times brought its own requests under the California Public Records Act (PRA) and also had to beat back a preemptive police officer reverse-PRA action arising from a public investigative report about an officer shooting in the Los Angeles County area where the Times was able to eventually obtain disclosure of the report and then a scale back of redactions made by the trial court in prior proceedings (both at the appellate and the trial court levels). L.A. Times moved for attorney’s fees against City of Pasadena under the PRA, with the lower court awarding $45,472, reducing the fee request for work other than the prior appellate mandamus proceeding and trial time on scaling back redactions and for duplicative work. However, the lower court denied any private attorney general fees to the L.A. Times, as against the officers/police union (PPOA), based on the private interest exception created by Adoption of Joshua S., 42 Cal.4th 945 (2008).
On appeal, the PRA award stuck, but the denial of 1021.5 fees was reversed with a remand to have the lower court determine the reasonable fees to which the L.A. Times was entitled as against officers/PPOA. This opinion, authored by Justice Johnson of the 2/1 DCA, is must reading in the PRA, private attorney general, and reverse-PRA action areas.
As to the PRA award to the Times as against Pasadena, the appellate court could find no abuse of discretion with respect to the litigation-juncture work limitations found reasonable by the lower court. After all, Times did spend substantial efforts in defending against the reverse-PRA suit (for which fees are not available) versus defending its PRA requests against City. The trial judge’s allocation methodology was affirmed.