San Diego schools prevail in records request fight with media

SAN DIEGO, Calif. (CN) — A California appeals panel saw no evidence that a school district improperly withheld public documents from a news organization, despite arguments that the district typically took over a year to provide the requested records.

Voice of San Diego, an online news source, argued the San Diego Unified School District would take on average almost 400 days over a five-year period to release requested documents. It said the California Public Records Act states “promptly available,” meaning within days or weeks.

A lower court denied a petition from Voice of San Diego seeking an order to stop the district from using public dollars to withhold records. The local news site then appealed.

A three-judge panel of the Fourth Appellate District on Monday agreed with the lower court’s ruling that no evidence showed the district had an unlawful practice of delaying or withholding documents.

“Whether an agency has promptly produced records is to be determined case-by-case considering the scope and burden imposed on the particular agency by the particular request,” wrote Associate Justice Truc Do. “We further conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court’s factual findings that the district did not maintain an unlawful practice of violating the CPRA.”

The appeal stemmed from Voice’s May 2018 petition against the school district. It claimed the district regularly delayed and withheld public records in defiance of state law. Part of its claims included an accusation that it used public money to perform what Voice called an unlawful practice, asking the lower court to order that stopped.

Voice argued the district failed to secure the requested records within a 10-day legally prescribed period. However, the lower court said the law imposed no 10-day requirement.

The lower court also didn’t agree with Voice that “promptly available” under the act meant “within days or a few weeks,” dismissing its first three claims. As that court found the district spent no public money on an illegal practice, it also denied Voice’s final claim.

According to Do, the school district received some 320 records requests annually between 2015 and 2020. Over 75 of them came from Voice.

The news organization only appealed the decision on the final claim.

“Voice advances the same arguments that it made in the trial court,” wrote Do. “In doing so, Voice fails to persuade us of any error.”

That same argument focused on Voice’s claim that “promptly available” meant days or weeks, not months or longer. Voice said the lower court disagreed with its interpretation, instead allowing for a variety of factors that don’t exist in law.

Do wrote the panel disagreed with Voice’s interpretation of the law.

“To accept Voice’s argument, we would have to insert words such as ‘days or weeks,’ or some other quantification of time, into the statute,” Do wrote.

However, the law does call for specific deadlines for an agency to determine whether a request seeks records it possesses — 10 days from receipt of the request, or an additional two weeks in some cases.

That clear deadline created by lawmakers undercuts Voice’s claim a similar line in the sand exists for disclosing those records, Do wrote.

“Because the Legislature chose not to define a precise deadline by which public agencies must produce disclosable public records, we will not create one,” she added.

Pivoting to the accusation that the school district improperly used public dollars, Do again agreed with the lower court. As no improper delay in producing the records existed, there was no illegal expenditure.

Representing Voice, attorney Felix Tinkov told Courthouse News in a statement that his clients are reading the decision and will consider their options.

The First Amendment Coalition filed an amicus brief in the case. It wasn’t a party in the suit, but had a strong interest in its outcome.

David Snyder, the coalition’s executive director, told Courthouse News he’d hoped the appeals court would have clarified that agencies can’t let public records requests languish for months.

“It’s an unfortunate decision,” he said, adding: “The public has to wait far too long.”

Representing the district, Jeff Michalowski said in a statement to Courthouse News that he was pleased with the decision.

“The opinion was well-reasoned and was amply supported by evidence that the district complied with the Public Records Act,” he added.

The appeals panel was rounded out by Acting Presiding Justice Terry B. O’Rourke and Associate Justice William Dato.