County Produced Documents It Promised to Produce, So Company Was Not a Catalyst Behind Production.
In HR Management Corp., Inc. v. County of Contra Costa, Case No. A139841 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 29, 2014) (unpublished), plaintiff company losing a services contract to two other businesses filed a request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) for disclosure of pre-award/contract award documents, with County producing some responsive documents and agreeing to product the successful vendors’ proposals after the board of supervisors awarded the contracts. However, plaintiff still filed a superior court mandamus proceeding, with the court issuing an alternative writ ordering the County to produce the contracts with County’s concurrence along an established schedule. In fact, the promised documents were delivered to plaintiff by County on schedule.
Yet another writ petition was filed with the superior court, with plaintiff seeking the contracts yet again and an award of over $15,000 in attorney’s fees under a “prevailing party” statutory provision of the CPRA. The superior court denied the petition, finding plaintiff did not prevail.
On appeal, the reviewing court did not get to the merits of denying the petition because the only review route was through an appellate writ petition, something not done by plaintiff. As far as denial of fees (which was an appealable order), Los Angeles Times v. Alameda Corridor Transp. Auth., 88 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1388-1389 (2001), the lower court correctly determined plaintiff did not prevail under CPRA. The earlier writ simply directed County to do what it was willing to do, such that it did not activate any modification of behavior to lead to the conclusion that plaintiff prevailed. (Barnardi v. County of Monterey, 167 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1393 (2008).) Fee denial affirmed.