Motivation of Party Irrelevant; Negative Multiplier Was Abuse of Discretion.
In Guarino v. City of Fontana, Case No. E054357 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 26, 2013) (unpublished), plaintiff filed a request for documents with the City of Fontana under the California
Above: Fontana City Hall. Author: JWut89LA. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Public Records Act, seeking information about excessive police force civil rights claims and defense billings expended on these claims. City said it would not initially comply, but did produce voluminous documents, many of them redacted, after plaintiff filed a CPRA mandate petition with the superior court. Plaintiff then sought $76,150 in fees and some minor costs. One judge issued a tentative to award her $54,500.31 (a reduced lodestar enhanced by a 1.25 multiplier) and some minor costs. However, the City 170.6 “papered” the judge, which meant the matter went to a second judge who basically ruled she should get nothing, primarily based on his perception she was only a shill for plaintiffs’ civil rights attorneys (there was no reason to seek the documents other than the fact “that there were fees payable from the public trough at the end of the rainbow”).
Russell Lee, photographer. Nov. 1938. Library of Congress.
Plaintiff appealed and gained a reversal based on each of her challenges.
Because the CPRA seeks to vindicate public access to government documents, motive is irrelevant in the overall equation. (County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1329 (2009).) Plaintiff did prevail by receiving the documents, and it did not matter she was acting as a “front” for a plaintiffs’ civil rights firm. Also, the Court of Appeal found no decision allowing for such a low negative multiplier where someone had prevailed.
