Opinion
A151282
06-19-2018
MICHAEL J. AGUIRRE, Petitioner, v. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Commission Decision Resolution L-522) BY THE COURT:
Before Richman, Acting P.J., Stewart, J., and Miller, J.
Petitioner Michael Aguirre requested records from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on December 12, 2016, pursuant to the California Constitution and the Public Records Act (PRA). The CPUC staff produced roughly 880 of the requested records; it withheld and redacted some documents, asserting they revealed the deliberative processes of the CPUC and its personnel (Gov. Code, §§ 6254, subd. (k) & 6255); it withheld others, asserting they were exempt as correspondence with the Governor's Office (Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (l)).
By Resolution No. L-522, the CPUC denied Aguirre's appeal seeking access to the withheld and redacted records. By order dated October 27, 2017, we granted Aguirre's petition for review of Resolution No. L-522, and ordered the CPUC to produce the contested records for our in camera review, along with a privilege log identifying, for each record, the asserted exemption or privilege, and, as to correspondence of any kind, the names of the sender and recipient(s), including their titles and positions.
We agreed with the CPUC's claim that petitioner had waived his request for another 16 records, withheld on the basis of the attorney-client privilege. (Resolution No. L-522, p. 12.)
Having reviewed the documents and given careful consideration to the parties' written and oral arguments and the governing law, we now direct the CPUC, within ten days from the date of this order, as follows:
First, the CPUC shall produce every document, with any attachment(s), over which it asserted the deliberative-process privilege, including those appearing at tabs 40, 41, and 42, with the redacted portions restored. As to all of these documents and redactions, the CPUC did not meet its burden of " 'demonstrat[ing] a clear overbalance on the side of confidentiality' " between the public interest in nondisclosure and the public interest in disclosure. (American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California v. Superior Court (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 68-69; County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1321 [" 'Where the public interest in disclosure of the records is not outweighed by the public interest in nondisclosure, courts will direct the government to disclose the requested information.' "].)
These documents and their attachments appear at tabs 1-3, 6, 10, 36-42, 44-56, 60-61, and 75-80. --------
Second, of the documents withheld on the basis of the exemption for correspondence to and from the Governor's Office (Gov. Code, § 6254, subd. (l)), the CPUC shall produce all of the following: the documents and any attachments appearing at tabs 4-5, 7-9, 14-15, 18, 22, 25, 28-29, 33, 59, 65-68, and 74.
Third, the CPUC shall provide petitioner with a copy of the privilege log it prepared in response to our October 27, 2017 order.
In addition, we uphold the limited redactions made within the documents appearing at tabs 14 and 18 to protect personal privacy, as follows: Michael Picker's personal contact information at the top of page 435 and in the middle of page 442 may be redacted; Ryan McCarthy's personal cell phone number at the bottom of page 444 may be redacted. The other redactions are denied.
Finally, we conclude, as we did in our October 27, 2017 order, that respondent may continue to withhold the 16 records over which it asserted the attorney-client privilege, as petitioner has not timely or convincingly disputed respondent's claim that he waived his request for these 16 documents. (Resolution No. L-522, p. 12.)