SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A Sacramento, California, television reporter scored a win in court Tuesday over public records he’s seeking from Governor Gavin Newsom.
Reporter Brandon Rittiman filed suit in August 2023 after a public records request to the governor’s office wasn’t properly fulfilled. The KXTV-TV/ABC 10 reporter wanted to see all calendar entries involving Ann Patterson, Newsom’s cabinet secretary, after she spoke at PG&E’s Investor Day last May.
Patterson appeared at the event a week after a proposed $150 million settlement for the Zogg Fire, which left four people dead, was announced. At the time, the utility giant PG&E faced criminal and civil penalties on accusations it didn’t remove a dead tree that led to the fire.
“Ms. Patterson spoke at the event, describing PG&E as a partner for a ‘whole variety of problems’ including ‘wildfire mitigation,’” Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang wrote in her decision granting a writ of mandate.
Newsom’s office told Rittiman it had the records, but that they were exempt from disclosure because they were part of Newsom’s correspondence and revealed his or his staff’s deliberative process. His office later released only the May 24, 2023, calendar entry for Patterson at Investor Day — information that was already available.
The governor has argued that releasing which PG&E employees Patterson met with and when could freeze future communications with the governor and could show Newsom’s thought processes and priorities. There also was no significant public interest in the requested calendar entries.
Judge Chang disagreed with his reasoning.
“The public interest in the number of times Ms. Patterson met with PG&E representatives in the same month that the (California Public Utilities Commission) agreed to a settlement of $140 million less than the initial fine sought is clearly significant and of interest to the public,” Chang wrote.
“Ms. Patterson also publicly attended an ‘Investor Day’ in support of PG&E only one week after this settlement, increasing the public interest in the governor’s office’s potential involvement in PG&E’s business affairs.”
Chang noted that while Patterson may have had no input on the commission’s decision over the settlement, Rittiman didn’t need to show she did before making his public records request.
Newsom raised what Chang calls “generalized arguments:” He argued that any required disclosure of who and when Patterson met with could hamper information reaching the governor.
“These arguments are speculative and do not provide any information as to how this specific, and fairly limited, request will harm the governor’s deliberative process,” Chang wrote.
Newsom failed to show a “particularized connection” between the calendar entries Rittiman requested and why nondisclosure is in the public’s interest, Chang found, calling Newsom’s “parade of horribles” arguments lacking in information that show withholding the information outweighs its release.
The judge noted that the law exempts the governor and staff’s correspondence from disclosure — however, Rittiman was asking for calendar entries, not meeting requests or responses.
Granting the writ of mandate, the judge stated that Newsom must show within two months that he’s complied with the order.
“Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions,” the judges wrote, citing from the 1986 case CBS v. Sherman Block. "In order to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process.”
Attorneys for Rittiman and for Newsom’s office couldn’t immediately be reached for comment.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
