Professional Documents
Culture Documents
City of Carmel-By-The-sea v. Monterey County Civil Grand Jury (m131242)
City of Carmel-By-The-sea v. Monterey County Civil Grand Jury (m131242)
2
3
MAR 1 0 20i5
5
6
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
9
10
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA,
11
12
Moving Party,
PETITION TO QUASH
SUBPOENA
v.
13
MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY,
14
Case NoM131242
Respondent.
15
16
MOTION.
17
18
19
20
23
24
25
the civil Grand Jury, has served a subpoena duces tecum on the City. The subpoen
seeks production of personnel records for ten current and former City employees.
Personnel records are confidential under the privacy provisions of the Californi
Constitution, Article 1, Section 1.
Page 1
confidential records sought by the subpoena. The scope of the records sought is vast.
to know whether the breadth of the subpoena coincides with or exceeds the scope o
the investigation it is intended to aid. The breadth of the unsupported request is reaso
enough to quash the subpoena. The primary defect in the subpoena is that it seeks t
(2011) 197 Cal. App. 4th 1293. The Woodlake court said this about a "freestandin
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
not treat the motion as part of a civil proceeding. The court treated the motion to quash
17
21
In all its functions, the grand jury operates under the general supervision of the courts
and is deemed to be a judicial body or an instrumentality of the courts. (citations omitted)
It is, broadly speaking, "an integral part of the court system, subject to the court's
general supervision." (citations omitted) An investigation by the grand jury is not a civil
proceeding for purposes of the statutory framework for discovery in civil proceedings.
The grand jury is not adjudicatory, and it does not provide relief to parties who appear
before it, which are the fundamental elements of a civil proceeding. (ld at 1300)
22
18
19
20
23
24
25
employees. It should be equally self-evident that any effort to abridge the current an
former City employees' privacy rights must be directed to the parties whose rights ar
affected because they are the Real Parties In Interest. To do otherwise would violat
individual due process rights as well as rights of privacy. There is no indication that th
Grand Jury has made an effort to notify the current and former City employees abou
the subpoena. The City has contacted all of the current and former City employees an
7
has given them notice of the Grand Jury's desire to review their personnel records. AI
8
9
10
but three of the subject current and former City employees are either refusing to allo
the City to divulge their private records, or have failed to respond to the City's inquiry.
11
The form letter used for that notice is attached as Exhibit "8" and incorporated herein b
12
this reference.
13
14
Electronics v. Superior Court (2007) (40 Cal.4th 360) the identity of a potential clas
15
member was sought. Held: "... Pioneer, as custodian of the relevant documents, ha
16
17
standing to assert the privacy interests of its customers in the identifying informatio
they gave to Pioneer." (See Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal.3
18
5. City Has a Duty To Assert Third Party Right To Privacy. The court commente
20
21
22
23
24
That i
25
important because nearly all of the case law on privacy arises in the context of litigation,
Page
usually in discovery. A grand jury investigation is not a civil proceeding for purposes o
discovery. The court must, therefore, distinguish the cases, including the cases cited i
ARGUMENT
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I.
that the personnel records sought are subject to its subpoena power. Penal Code 925
reads in pertinent part:
The grand jury may ... examine the books and records of any incorporate
city . .. in the county.... fnhe grand jury may investigate and report upon th
operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, functions,
and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city ... an
make such recommendations as it may deem proper .... (emphasis added)
The Penal Code does not define the term "officer. "1
According to mos
14
dictionaries the term "officer" or "public officer" is "[o]ne who holds or is invested with
15
public office; a person elected or appointed to carry out some portion of a government'
16
sovereign powers." (Black's Law Dictionary). The court in People v. Olsen (1986) (18
17
Cai.App.3d 257, at 265-66) relied on secondary authority for the proposition that th
18
term "officer" connotes someone clothed with constitutional, or at least statutory, status:
19
20
21
22
(4) However, "[o]ne of the prime requisites [of a public office] is that [it] b
created by the constitution or authorized by some statute. And it is essential tha
the incumbent be clothed with some portion of the sovereign functions o
government, either legislative, executive, or judicial to be exercised in the interes
of the public. There must also be a duty or service to be performed, and it is th
nature of this duty, not its extent, that brings into existence a public office and
public officer.[footnote omitted] Thus, an officer, as a general rule, is based on
23
24
25
PC 830-832 defines peace officer, public officer, etc. These definitions pertain exclusively to person
with authority to make an arrest. See, e.g. PC 831. (a) A custodial officer is a public officer, not a pea
officer, employed by a law enforcement agency of a city or county who has the authority an
responsibility for maintaining custody of prisoners.
2
3
some Jaw that defines the duties appertaining to it and fixes the tenure, and
exists independently of the presence of a person in it." (52 Cai.Jur.3d, Publi
Officers and Employees,12, pp. 176-177, fns. omitted.)
The employees whose records are sought here were not "officers" as defined i
People v. Olsen. They were general employees; most were clerical workers.
Exhibit "C" attached hereto (under seal) and incorporated herein by this reference.
None of their positions arose from the constitution or statute, and none held elective o
appointive office. Accordingly, PC 925a. does not apply to the current and former Ci
Se
The City has been unable to find case law or secondary authority for th
10
proposition that the legislature intended the term "officer" to apply to general employees.
11
In the absence of authority to the contrary, the usual canon of construction pertains.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (expression of one thing is the exclusion o
another). The Grand Jury is limited to discovery of police personnel records. (Pena
Code 832.7) Neither PC 832.7 nor PC 925a. grant access to other personnel record
for other public employees. If the legislature had intended such a sweeping grant o
authority it surely would have stated so in Penal Code 925a.
confined the Grand Jury's subpoena power to "officers" the court is left without
statutory ambiguity to interpret. That which is clear on its face admits no interpretation.
19
20
of PC 925a. The statute affords no authority for the subpoena. The California Suprem
21
22
23
24
25
Court has held in several cases that the powers of a grand jury are narrowl
circumscribed by its enabling statutes, in this case Penal Code 925a. The high cou
summarized the status of the law in Goldstein v. Superior Court (2008) (45 Cal.4th 218,
85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 213, 199 P 3d 588). The opinion begins with this summary:
In Daily Journal Corp. v. Superior Court (1999) (20 Cal.4th 1117, 86 Cai.Rptr.2
623, 979 P.2d 982), this court ruled that "the superior court's powers to disclos
City's Petition to Quash Subpoena - M131242
Page
grand jury testimony are only those which the Legislature has deemed
appropriate." (ld. at p. 1128, 86 Cai.Rptr.2d 623, 979 P.2d 982.) "[l]f superio
courts could disclose materials based only on their inherent powers, the statuto
rules governing disclosure of grand jury testimony would be swallowed up in tha
large exception." (Ibid.)-
2
3
4
7
8
10
11
12
13
This statute is unqualified. Had the legislature intended to exempt the grand ju
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
from the prohibition in GC 6254, it could have done so. Article I, Section 1 of th
California constitution makes it unnecessary to demonstrate that disclosure of personne
records "would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" because eve
disclosure of personnel records, except police officers or those who hold public office, i
unwarranted.
Ill.
23
24
25
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienabl
rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring,
possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety
happiness, and privacy. (emphasis added)
According to the California Supreme Court, the right of privacy was added t
Page
Article 1 to protect the individual against increased surveillance and data collection b
government and business. White v. Davis, (1975) (13 Cal. 3d 757, 774, 120 Cal. Rptr.
94, 105).
Election (Tuesday, Nov. 7, 1972)]. The White court quoted the Election Brochure a
9
10
11
The court in White relied on the ballot argument in favor of the privac
follows:
The proliferation of government snooping and data collecting is threatening t
destroy our traditional freedoms. Government agencies seem to be competing t
compile the most extensive sets of dossiers of American citizens.
Computerization of records makes it possible to create "cradle-to-grave" profile
of every American. II At present there are no effective restraints on th
information activities of government and business. This amendment creates
legal and enforceable right of privacy for every Californian." (13 Cal. 3d at 774,
533 P.2d at 233, 120 Cal. Rptr. at 105)
12
According to the White court, one purpose of the privacy amendment was t
13
eliminate the improper use of information properly obtained for a specific purpose, sue
14
disclosed to a third party, such as the grand jury, and used for an unintended purpose
16
17
18
21
22
19
20
23
24
25
3
4
required to protect are encompassed by the phrase "all writings relating to hiring,
11
[T]he Grand Jury is not requesting the production of social security numbers
benefrt information, medical records or information, or similar records o
information ...
12
10
For example, i
13
14
15
16
17
18
Should the Court grant the Grand Jury's request for production of document
19
City respectfully requests the Court set a time and date for an in camera hearing.
20
IV.
21
The City, and the current and former City employees whose records are sought,
22
must recognize that the Grand Jury may decide to make these records public. Pena
23
24
25
investigation provided that the name of any person, or facts that lead to th
identity of any person who provided information to the grand jury, shall no
be released. Prior to granting approval pursuant to this section, a judge rna
require the redaction or masking of any part of the evidentiary material, findings,
or other information to be released to the public including, but not limited to, th
identity of witnesses and any testimony or materials of a defamatory or libelou
nature. (emphasis added)
2
3
4
With judicia
approval, therefore, these records may be made public. Confidentiality is not absolute.
7
In light of the press coverage given to this investigation it would be relatively easy t
8
9
10
11
identify the current and former City employees whose records are subject t
discretionary disclosure.
v.
12
If the records sought by this subpoena are disclosed to the Grand Jury, there is
13
danger they will become public records under the Public Records Acf despite th
14
protections of Penal Code 925a. The local press and other interested parties can b
15
expected to argue that if these constitutionally protected records have been given to
16
third party, such as the Grand Jury, they must be made available to others since th
17
18
VI.
19
20
privacy guarantee.
21
subpoenas of personnel records for public employees. Nearly all of the cases dealing
22
23
24
25
Government Code 6252(e) "Public records" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct o
the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form o
characteristics. See also Government Code 6253 (public records subject to disclosure) See also Government Cod
6254.5 " ...local agency discloses a public record which is otherwise exempt...shall constitute a waiver of t
exemptions specified in Sections 6254 ... ) and Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2014) (232 Cai.App.4th 175; 181
Cai.Rptr.3d 324)
Page9
with public employee personnel records arise in the context of Pitchess motions3 . Cit
of Woodlake v. Tulare County Grand Jury, (2011) (197 Cal. App. 4th 1293) is the onl
case we can find that deals with a grand jury subpoena of personnel records. It arise
in the context of police personnel records. The Woodlake case turned on a statute tha
pertains only to police. The court addressed that salient fact thus:
Penal Code section 832.7 expressly provides that its designation
confidentiality of peace officer personnel records "shall not apply
investigations or proceedings concerning the conduct of peace officers .
conducted by a grand jury." Additionally, the grand jury does not seek record
pursuant to the authority of the Public Records Act, that is, as a member of th
general public; instead, it acts pursuant to the express statutory authori
afforded to grand juries by Penal Code sections 925 and 925a. ld at 1302.
(emphasis added)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
records at issue here are for general employees not police officers. As the Woodlak
court pointed out, those general employees are protected by the constitution's privac
provision.
The legislature could have opened all public personnel records to grand ju
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
scrutiny, but it did not. The legislature's decision not to subject all employees to th
diminished protection afforded police officers must be accorded the intentionality i
plainly commands. The reason the legislature granted the grand jury access to poli
personnel records, but did not extend that access to other public employees, can b
explained; Police occupy a unique position of trust, confidence, authority and power.
When the police are corrupted it is essential that the public have recourse to thei
employment records. The same public concern does not apply to general employees.
It would be a mistake to decide this motion as if the employees concerned ar
24
25
Page 1
equivalent to armed and sworn peace officers with "life and death power'' over eve
Since the Woodlake case is not helpful we are forced to fall back on privac
cases arising in the normal course of civil litigation. Those cases fall overwhelmingly o
Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (1981) (119 Cai.App.3d 516, 526) found n
compelling state interest to require disclosure of personnel, tenure and promotion file
in a defamation action.
ElDorado Savings & Loan Assn. v. Superior Court (1987) (190 Cai.App.3d 342)
10
Gender and age employment discrimination case; Plaintiffs sought all personnel record
11
of the only male in a comparable position. The trial court ordered production of th
12
13
14
record was inadequate to support discovery of the entire personnel file. The trial cou
was instructed to consider less intrusive means of discovery and in camera inspections.
In Board of Trustees v. Leach (1968) (258 Cal. App. 2d 281, 65 Cal. Rptr. 588
15
the court stated that it is common knowledge that such matters [employee personne
16
files] are among the most confidential and sensitive records kept by a private or publi
17
employer, and their use remains effective only so long as the confidence of the records
18
19
20
and the confidences of those who contribute to those records, are maintained.
In applying these theories to the employee records at issue in this case, it i
useful to consider what such records usually entail. The City's personnel files are
21
collection of many different types of data. It is this diverse variety and large quantum o
22
information which has probably attracted the Grand Jury's attention and piqued it
23
interest.
24
employment, medical (not requested by the Grand Jury in this matter), educational an
25
family data. Additionally, they often contain material collected about the employee whil
They may include information elicited from the employee, such as pas
Page 11
problems (not requested by the Grand Jury in this matter) and disciplinary actions.
2
which individuals themselves do not readily reveal. Additionally, personnel files typical!
contain some financial and medical data (not requested by the Grand Jury in thi
matter).
7
8
Constitution.
VII.
Jury's effort to invade the privacy of the former and current City employees whos
10
confidential employment records are sought. The information sought does not belong t
11
the City. The City is merely the custodian of the information. California Constitution,
12
Article 1, Section 1 vests in the employee the proprietary interest in the informatio
13
sought.
14
In the event that the Court disagrees with the City's analysis disclosure must b
15
16
17
ordered to inform the Court of the precise grounds for this subpoena so that the Court'
18
order may be narrowly tailored to protect the former and current City employees
19
20
21
permissible disclosure of the records, and it must require that the records be returned t
22
the City at the close of the Grand Jury investigation. The County's proposed form o
23
24
25
VIII.
CONCLUSION
Numerous courts have held that personnel files must be protected in the absen
of a focused need to obtain specific information. See, e.g. Harding Lawson Assoc. v.
City's Petition to Quash Subpoena- Ml31242
Superior Court (1992) (1 0 Cal. App.4th 7, at 10,11 ). In Harding Trial Court had ordere
writ was issued "to vacate its order insofar as it required disclosure of confidentia
explained that personnel files are protected unless the party seeking discovery "ca
show a compelling need for the particular documents and that the information canna
7
8
9
/d.
The cou
10
In the instant case it appears the Grand Jury did not ask the employees whos
11
personnel documents are being subpoenaed if they would waive their right o
12
confidentiality and allow the City to produce the documents, or alternatively, subpoen
13
14
15
16
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: March____, 2015
~w~'
DONALDG:fREMAN
City Attorney
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit "A" -the Civil Grand Jury Subpoena (Under Seal) - not attached to the
Petition served on the Respondent Employees/Real Parties in Interest
Exhibit "B" - City's letter to former and current employees re waiver of
confidentiality rights
Exhibit "C" - Declaration of City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Administrator
Regarding Employee Employment Status (Under Seal) - not attached to the
Petition served on the Respondent Employees/Real Parties in Interest
Page 1
Dear_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_.J
Earlier this month, I apprised you that the Monterey County Civil Grand Jury (CGJ) had
requested your personnel file. The City declined to provide that document to the Jury.
Yesterday, the City received a subpoena from the Civil Grand Jury, demanding the City provide
the following information to the Office of the County Counsel from your file:
The City is to produce and present the information on or before Wednesday, 4 March. You may
wish to contact your independent legal counsel regarding this matter. Should you have any
questions, please contact me.
Douglas J. Schmitz
City Administrator
25 February 2015
EXHIBIT "B"
MAR 0 6 2015
1
L.Newen
3
4
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-TilE-SEA,
Petitioner,
6
7
8
9
10
v.
2014-2015 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL
GRAND JURY
Respondent.
11
Case No.
M131242
12
13
Good cause appearing, the ex parte application of the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea and the
14
2014 - 2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury to shorten time for a hearing on a Petition to
15
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition and supporting papers be filed and served on
17
counsel for the Grand Jury no later than March 10, 2015; that responsive pleadings be filed and
18
served no later than March 13, 2015; any reply filed and served no later than March 17, 2015;
19
and that a hearing on the petition be held in a Department to be determined on March 19,2015,
20
at 8:30 am. Service shall be personal or by facsimile.
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
City ofCarmel-By-The-Sea v. 2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury.
Case No.