Ardon v. City of Los Angeles
366 P.3d 996, 62 Cal. 4th 1176, 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 743 (2016)
Rule of Law:
A governmental entity's inadvertent release of documents otherwise exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act does not waive the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product privilege, as the waiver provision in Government Code section 6254.5 applies only to intentional disclosures.
Facts:
- Estuardo Ardon filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles (City) challenging the validity of a tax and seeking a refund.
- In March and September 2007, during discovery for the underlying litigation, Ardon served the City with requests for production of documents related to the disputed tax.
- In February 2008, the City provided Ardon with a 'Privilege Log' listing 27 documents it was withholding as privileged, which a superior court later affirmed in March 2008.
- On January 14, 2013, Rachele R. Rickert, one of Ardon's attorneys, submitted a request to the City Administrative Officer under the Public Records Act for documents relating to the tax.
- On January 25, 2013, the City's administrative office responded to Rickert's request by providing approximately 53 documents, some of which appeared to match descriptions of documents listed on the earlier privilege log.
- In April 2013, Attorney Rickert informed the City that she had received two specific privileged documents and a document disclosing the contents of a third, and she refused to return them, contending that their production had waived any claim of privilege.
- The City, stating the documents were privileged and inadvertently produced, requested their return and an agreement not to rely on them, which Rickert refused.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Estuardo Ardon filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles in superior court.
- During discovery in the underlying litigation, the superior court granted motions to quash filed by the City and the League of California Cities, finding certain documents to be privileged.
- After Ardon's attorney received documents from the City's administrative office that appeared privileged, the City filed a motion in the superior court for an order compelling the return of privileged material and to disqualify plaintiff's counsel of record.
- The trial court denied the City's motion, concluding that the production of the documents under the Public Records Act had waived any privilege.
- The City appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeal (Ct.App. 2/6 B252476).
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the production of the documents waived any privilege.
- The California Supreme Court granted the City's petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public entity's inadvertent disclosure of attorney-client privileged or attorney work product documents, made in response to a request under the California Public Records Act, waive the privilege under Government Code section 6254.5?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
No, a public entity's inadvertent disclosure of attorney-client privileged or attorney work product documents in response to a Public Records Act (PRA) request does not waive the privilege. The California Supreme Court interpreted Government Code section 6254.5, which generally provides that 'disclosure' of an exempt public record constitutes a waiver, to apply only to intentional, not inadvertent, disclosures. The court reasoned that the legislative purpose behind section 6254.5, as evidenced by its context within the Public Records Act and its legislative history, was to prevent 'selective disclosure' where an agency intentionally discloses records to some members of the public but not others, rather than to penalize accidental releases. This interpretation harmonizes with existing California case law (e.g., State Comp. Ins. Fund v. WPS, Inc. and Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp.) concerning the waiver of attorney-client and work product privileges during discovery, which consistently holds that inadvertent disclosure does not waive these important privileges. The court emphasized the importance of these privileges for governmental entities to obtain adequate legal advice and acknowledged the practical challenges faced by public agencies in reviewing voluminous public records requests, making human error inevitable. The court stated that its holding applies to 'truly inadvertent disclosures' and not to attempts to selectively disclose records.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of privilege waiver for public entities under the California Public Records Act, shielding them from losing critical protections due to administrative oversight. By aligning PRA waiver standards with those for evidentiary privileges in discovery, the ruling reinforces the state's strong policy favoring the confidentiality of attorney-client and work product communications, even for governmental agencies. Law students will understand that inadvertence, when genuine, generally does not trigger waiver for these privileges, establishing a 'no gotcha' rule for public records requests involving privileged information. This precedent will be vital in future cases involving public entity document productions, guiding courts to consider the intent and circumstances of disclosure when assessing waiver.
