DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

KELLI L. SAGER (State BarNo. 120162)

2 kellisager@dwt.com
ROCFIELLE L. WILCOX (State BarNo. 197790)
3 rochellewilcox@dv\rt.com
JONATHAN L. SEGAL (State Bar No. 264238)
4 865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2400 bNUUTTSED
Los Angeles, Califomia 90017-2566
5 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 / Fax: (213) 633-6899
JANl 0 2012
6 LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC
KARLENE GOLLER (State BarNo. 147065) Bv FfiANh TEMMERMAN
7 202 West First Street Deputy ClerK
Los Angeles, California 90012
8 Telephone: (213) 237-3760 / Fax: (213) 237-3810
9 MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC., dba
THE SACRAMENTO BEE
10 STEPHEN BURNS (State Bar No. 105312)
2100 Q Street
11 Sacramento, Califomia 95816-6899
Telephone: (916) 321-1926/ Fax (916) 326-5586
12
Attomeys for Petitioners
13 LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC
and MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC. dba THE
14 SACRAMENTO BEE
15
16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

17 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

18
19 LOS ANGELES TIMES Case No. 34-2011-80000929
COMMUNICATIONS LLC; MCCLATCHY
20 NEWSPAPERS, INC. dba THE WpEM!>R()SBO] JUDGMENT GRANTING
SACRAMENTO BEE, LOS ANGELES TIMES
21 COMMUNICATIONS LLC AND
Petitioners, MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC. DBA
22 THE SACRAMENTO BEE'S VERIFIED
vs. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
23 AND AWARDING ATTORNEYS' FEES
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE; AND COSTS
CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE
24 ON RULES; NANCY SKINNER AS CHAIR
OF THE CALIFORNIA
25 COMMITTEE ON RULES,ASSEMBLY Assigned to the Hon. Timothy Frawley
Dept. 29
26
Respondents.
27
28

JUDGMENT GRANTING PETITION FOR WRITOF N4ANDATE

OWT 18640288vl 0026175-000405
 On December 1,2011, this Court issued a Tentative Ruling regarding Petitioners Los
Angeles Times Communications LLC and McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. dba The Sacramento Bee's
(the "News Organizations") Verified Petition for a Writ ofMandate after reviewing the briefing
and evidence submitted. The Tentative Ruling is attached to this Judgment as Exhibit A
The Court stated that the Tentative Ruling would "become the ruling of the Court imless a
party desiring to be heard so advises the clerk..." (Ex. A. at 1.) The Tentative Ruling stated that
the News Organizations' Petition was GRANTED. (Ex. A. at 12.) Because no party advised the
Court that it desired a hearing, the Tentative Ruling is now theralingof the Court, as reflected in
the Court's Minute Order, attached as Exhibit B to this Judgment
10 Based on these facts, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
11 1. The Court enters JUDGMENT GRANTING the Petition for Writ of Mandate as set
12 forth in the attached Tentative Ruling;
13 2. Respondents the Califomia Legislature, the Califomia Assembly Cormnittee on
14 Rules, and Nancy Skinner as Chair of the Califomia Assembly Committee on Rules
15 shall release to the News Organizations the documents sought by the Petition:
16 3. A Writ of Mandamus shall issue under the seal of this Court directed to Respondents
17 in this action, commanding them to release the public records sought by the Petition:
18 4. The Writ of Mandamus shall be served by the News Organizations upon
19 Respondents promptly upon its issuance by the Clerk of the Court;
20 5. As stipulated to by the parties. Judgment in this action shall be and is entered in
21 favor of Petitioners Los Angeles Times Communications LLC and McClatchy
22 Newspapers, Inc. dba The Sacramento Bee against Respondents the Califomia
23 • Legislature, the Califomia Assembly Committee on Rules, and Nancy Skinner as
24 Chair of the Califomia Assembly Committee on Rules, for the News Organizations'
25 attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this matter in the amount of $73,707.54, and
26 Respondents shall request that the Controller pay that amount to Davis Wright
27 Tremaine LLP no later than December 31,2011.
28

1 DAVJSWRICHTTREMAINELLP
JUDGMENT GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE t t i S. FIGUEROA ST. SUITE 2400
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA900I7-256&
DWT I8640288vl 0026175-000405 (2l3)633.«a00
Fu:(2l3)633.«i$$
 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED
Horfi. Timothy'Frawley / ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Judge, Sacramento County Superior Court

Respectfiilly Submitted by:

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
KELLI L. SAGER
ROCHELLE L. WILCOX
JONATHAN L. SEGAL
10
LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC
11 KARLENE GOLLER
12 MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC.,
dba THE SACRAMENTO BEE
13 STEBHHtSURNS
14
15
16 Attomeys for Petitioners
LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC and
17 MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC. dba THE SACRAMENTO BEE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DAVISWRIGHTTREMAINELLP
<6S S. FIGUEROA ST. SUITE 2400
JUDGMENT GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIAMDI7-2JK
(213) 633.«800
Fu:(2l3)633-«8»»
EXHIBIT A
 Department 29
Superior Court of California
County of Sacramento
720 Ninth Street
Timothy M. Frawley, Judge
Frank Temmerman, Clerk

Hearing: Friday, December 2,2011, 9:00 a.m.

LOS ANGELES TIMES Case Number: 34-2011-80000929

COMMUNICATIONS LLC;
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
dba THE SACRAMENTO BEE

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE;
CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON RULES; NANCY
SKINNER, as Chair of the California
Assembly Committee on Rules

Proceedings: Petition for Writ of Mandate

Filed By: Kelli Sager, Rochelle Wilcox, and Jonathan Segal, Davis
Wright Tremaine LLP; Karlene Goller, Los Angeles Times
Communications LLC; and Stephen Burns, McClatchy
Newspapers, Inc. dba The Sacramento Bee, Attorneys for
Petitioners

The following shall constitute the Court's tentative ruling on the above-entitled
matter. The tentative ruling shall become the ruling ofthe Court unless a party
desiring to be heard so advises the clerk of this Department no later than 4:00
p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that
such party has notified the other side of its intention to appear.

In the event that this tentative ruling becomes the final ruling of the Court,
counsel for Petitioners is directed to prepare a formal order, incorporating this
ruling as an exhibit; submit it to opposing counsel for approval as to form; and
thereafter submit it to the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING

Page 1 of 12
 Introduction

In this action, petitioners Los Angeles Times Communications LLC and

McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. (the "News Organizations") seek a writ of mandate
under the Legislative Open Records Act ordering respondents the Caiifornia
Assembly Committee On Rules, Nancy Skinner, and the California Legislature
(collectively, the "Assembly") to produce records related to budgets and
expenditures for the members of the Assembly and its committees.

The Assembly has refused to produce the records, contending they are exempt
from disclosure as (i) "preliminary drafts, notes, or legislative memoranda" under
Government Code § 9p75(a); (ii) "correspondence" of and to members ofthe
Legislature and their staffs under Government Code § 9075(h); or (iii) records
that are exempted or prohibited fi'om disclosure under the "deliberative process
privilege" and Government Code § 9075(1).

The court, being persuaded that the claimed exemptions do not apply, shall grant
the petition.

n.
statement ofthe Case

This case arises out of several requests for information under California's
Legislative Open Records Act (the "Open Records Act") (Gov. Code § 9070 ef
seq.)

The apparent motivation for the information requests were claims made by
Assemblymember Anthony Portantino that Assembly leaders were using budget
allocations as a means of attempting to control the votes of party members:
rewarding those who vote along party lines with increased budgets, and
punishing those who do not with budget reductions. Assemblymember
Portantino further ciaimed that Assembly leaders are hiding members' actual
expenditures from the public by attributing individual member expenses to
committees and then refusing to release full Information about committee
expenditures.

On July 15, 2011, three reporters for the News Organizations wrote to the
Assembly seeking information about budget allowances and expenditures for
Assembly members and committees.

While none of the requests were identical, they were similar in scope. A reporter
for the Times Community News requested copies of "annual allowances and
budget summaries" for each Assembly member and committee for budget years
2010 and 2011. A reporter for the Sacramento bureau of the Los Angeles Times
requested the "office budget and expenditure approvals" for each Assembly

Page 2 of 12
member, committee, and subcommittee for the current legislative session, plus
any documents reflecting changes to the budgets or expenditure approvals. A
reporter for the Sacramento Bee requested all records reflecting the "approved
budget" and additional "expenditure authorizations," and any changes to the
approved budget or expenditure authorizations, for each Assembly member and
committee fbr the years 2009,2010, and 2011; plus any documents related to
consultants or legal settlements related to the Assembly or its members, and any
Assembly Operating Fund Report, Independent Audit of Operating Funds, and/or
Performance Audit for those years.^

The Assembly, through its Committee on Rules, responded that records relating
to budgets and changes to budgets for members of the /Assembly and its
committees are exempt from disclosure undei* section 9075, subdivisions (a) and
(h) ofthe Open Records Act

With regard to records relating to actual expenditures, the Assembly responded

that it annually publishes information about expenditures in an annual
expenditure report (known as the "Operating Fund Report"), usually near the end
of the calendar year. The Assembly indicated that the Operating Fund Report
covering the 12-month period ending November 30,2009, has been published
and is publicly available. (The Assembly contends that the Operating Fund
Report discloses every dollar the Assembly spends in a given year, according to
detailed categories listed by the member, committee, caucus, or leadership
position that made the expenditure.)

Although the Operating Fund Report for the period ending November 30, 2010,
has not yet been published, the Assembly agreed to produce (to one oftiie
reporters) responsive records describing expenditures for the 12-month period
ending November 30, 2010, prior to publication ofthe report.

The Assembly initially refused to produce any records describing expenditures

after November, 2010, contending it did not yet have any responsive records for
the 12-montii period ending November 30, 2011. However, the Assembly later
took the position that it would provide reports on expenditures incurred year-to-
date for anyone who asks for them. The Assembly contends that reports
showing the Assembly's year-to-date expenditurestiiroughJuly 31, 2011, were

^ Anthony Portantino. a member ofthe Assembly, representing the 44th Assembly District, also
submitted a request to the Assembly seeking information about budgets and expenditures for
Assembly members and committees. He requested records, for the years 2009 through 2011, of
(1) all approved budgets and processed expenditures for Assembly members and committees; (ii)
all writings reflecting changes in budget allocations or authorized spending for Assembly
members and committees; (iii) all writings regarding payments to vendors, consultants,
settlements, contractors for employment and/or services, and other payments incurred by or
made from the Assembly's Operating Fund; and (iv) the last three available Operating Fund
Reports, Independent Audits of Operating Funds, and Performance Audits. Since
Assemblymember Portantino is not a petitioner in this action, his request is included only as
background information.

PageSof 12
provided totiiepetitioners who requested them. (See Opposition Brief, p.4.) In
addition, tiie Assembly claims it has begun posting year-to-date expenditure
reports on its website on a quarteriy basis. {Ibid.) The Assembly contends that a
report has been posted to its website showing expenses incurred through
September 30, 2011.

The Assembly responded that it would produce the requested "Independent

Audits of Operating Funds," but that it would not produce any documents relating
to "consultants," because disclosure would constitute an unwananted invasion of
personal privacy. The Assembly claimed not to have any records responsive to
the requests for "Peri'omriance Audits" or "legal settiements."

lil.
Requests for Judicial Notice

The News Organizations request the court takejudicial notice ofthe following
documents: the legislative history of Assembly Bill No. 23; portions of Senate Bill
No. 87; budget documents for Assemblymember Timothy Donnelly; analyses
prepared by Califomia Common Sense; various news releases; and a letter from
the California State Controller to the City of Bell Interim City Administrator.

The Assembly requests the court take judicial notice of Assembly Bill 23; Ballot
Pamphlet materials for Proposition 140; the Standing Rules ofthe Assembly; the
Statement of Assembly Expenditures for 2009 and 2010; a summary of
Assembly expenditures for December 1, 2010, through September 30,2011; and
a list of Assembly staff salaries as of August 31, 2011.

The Assembly objects to the News Organizations' request for judicial notice of
tiie legislative history of Assembly Bill No. 23 (and, in particular, the portion ofthe
"legislative history" consisting of press releases, newspaper articles, letters, and
enrolled bill reports); the California Common Sense analyses; the news releases;
and the State Controller's letter.

The court sustains the Assembly's objections with regard totiieportion of the
legislative history consisting of press releases, newspaper articles, and letters,
and the Califomia Common Sense analyses. {Kaufman & Broad Communities,
Inc. V. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 26, 37-39.) All other
objections are overruled.

The court grants the requests for judicial notice of the legislative history of
Assembly Bill No. 23; portions of Senate Bill No. 87; budget documents for
Assemblymember Timothy Donnelly; the various news releases; the letter from
the California State Controller; the Standing Rules of the Assembly; the
Statement of Assembly Expenditures for 2009 and 2010; tiie summary of
Assembly expenditures for December 1, 2010,tiiroughSeptember 30, 2011; and
the list of Assembly staff salaries as of August 31, 2011. (Altiiough the court

Page 4 of 12
takes judicial notice of the budget documents, news releases, and tiie
Controller's letter, the court does not assume the truth oftfiematters asserted
therein.)

The court denies the request for judicial notice ofthe Ballot Pamphlet materials
for Proposition 140, as Irrelevant.

IV.
Discussion

The question before the Court is straightforward: whether the Assembly properly
refused to disclose documents reflecting approved budgets and expenditures for
its members and committees.^ For the reasons described below, the court
concludes that the records were improperly witiiheld under the Open Records
Act.

In a somewhat ironic twist, the Assembly argues the "Open Records Act" should
be given a narrow interpretation that significantiy restricts the public'srightto
inspect legislative records. Further, the Assembly argues that the constitutional
doctrine of separation of powers prohibits this court from enforcing any otiier
interpretation. Both arguments lack merit.

Just because the Legislature adopted the Open Records Act does not mean that
the court must accept the Assembly's Interpretation of it In this litigation. While a
court may give deference to the Legislature's interpretation of its own acts (as
revealed by legislative history or subsequent enactments), there is no rationale
for deferring to a post-enactment expression of legislative intent intiieabsence
of a duly enacted statute. (See Cal. Labor Fed'n v. Indus. Welfare Comm'n
(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 982, 995 [court may not rely on subsequent Senate
resolution].) Even when an expression of legislative intent is embodied in a
subsequent enactment, that expression of intent does not bind the courts in the
construction of an eariier enacted statute. {Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water
Resources Control Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 921. 940.)

Under fundamental principles of separation of powers, the legislative branch of

government has the power to enact statutes. The interpretation of a statute, in
contrast, is an exercise of the judicial power which the Constitution assigns to the
courts. {Carter v. Califomia Dept. of Veterans Affairs (2006) 38 Cal.4th 914, 923;
McClung v. Employment Development Dept. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 467,470.)

After the judiciary definitively andfinallyinterprets a statute, the Legislature may,

subject to constitutional restraints, amend the statute to say something different.

^ The withheld documents at issue consist of budgets and revised budgets, monthly budget
summaries (or diarts/spreadsheets), prior-year staff rosters, and Personnel Transaction Reports.
/Mthough documents related to consultants were withheld on privacy grounds, the News
Organization did not argue this was improper. The issue is therefore considered waived.

Page 5 of 12
But if it does so, it changes the law. The amended statute defines the law for the
future, but it cannot define the law for the past The Legislature has no authority
to interpret the laws and determine rights; that is the function of the judiciary.
{McClung, supra. 34 Cal.4th at pp.473-474; see also Carter, swpra, 38 Cal.4th at
pp.922-923.)

Having enacted the Open Records Act, the Legislature is bound to it, and tiiis
court can and shall interpret and enforce it.

In construing the meaning of a statute, the reviewing court turnsfirstto tiie

language ofthe statute, giving the words their usual, ordinary, and common
sense meaning based upon the language used and the evident purpose for
which the statute was adopted. {People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145,
151.) The words must be construed in context, and provisions relating to the
same subject matter must be harmonized to the extent possible. {Ibid.)

If the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, there is no need for further
construction. {Hennan v. LA. County Metro. Transp. Auth. (1999) 71
Cal.App.4th 819, 826; see also Mejia v. Reed {2003) 31 Cal.4th 657,.663.) Ifthe
words ofthe statute are ambiguous, a court may resort to extrinsic sources,
including the legislative history. {Ibid.) If, after considering extrinsic sources, the
statutory language is still susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation,
the court should consider relevant policy considerations and apply reason,
practicality, and common sense to ascertain the Intent. {Ibid.)

The language of the Open Records Act at issue here reflects a strong
presumption in favor of public access to legislative records. In enacting the Open
Records Act, the Legislature found and declared that "access to infomnation
concerning the conduct of the people's business by the Legislature is a
fundamental and necessaryrightof every citizen in this state." (Gov. Code §
9070.)

Like the Open Records Act,tiieCalifornia Public Records Act also reflects a
strong public policy in favor of disclosure of public records. However, while most
state and local agencies have always been subject to the California Public
Records Act, records in the custody ofthe Governor's Office, the courts, and the
Legislature originally were exempted from the California Public Records Act.

In 1975, as part of broad legislation designed to increase the public's access to

government information, the Legislature enacted Assembly Bill No. 23 (AB 23).
That legislation removed, with certain exceptions, the exemption from the
California Public Records Act for the Governor's Office and the courts, and
enacted the separate (Legislative) Open Records Act for the Legislature. Thus, a
key purpose of the Open Records Act was to ensure public access to information
about how the Legislature operates.

Pages of 12
To achieve its purpose, the Open Records Act created a presumptive public right
of access to legislative records. (Gov. Code § 9073.) Legislative records are
open to inspection and any person has a right to inspect any legislative record,
subject only to the specific exemptions set forth In the Act {Ibid.; see also Gov.
Code § 9072 [defining legislative records].) Whenever the Legislature withholds
any legislative record from inspection,tiieLegislature Is required to "justify" the
withholding in writing by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt
undertiieexpress provisions of the Act or that on the facts of the particular case
the public interest served by not making the record public "clearly ouhweighs" the
public interest served by disclosure. (Gov. Code § 9074.)

In keeping with the presumption in favor of public access that is expressly

recognized in the Open Records Act, the court is persuaded that the exemptions
from disclosure should be narrowly construed to ensure maximum disclosure of
the conduct of governmental operations - just as exemptions under the California
Public Records Act and federal Freedom of Information Act are narrowly
construed. (See City and County of San Francisco v. Ballard (2006) 136
Cal.App.4th 381. 400; see also San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court {^983) 143
Cal.App.Sd 762. 772-773; Citizens for a Better Environment v. Dept. of Food and
Agriculture (1985) 171 Cal.App.Sd 704. 711.)

The records requested by the News Organizations indisputably contain

information relating to the conduct of the public's business. The records all
reflect how Assembly money is budgeted and spent, which is critical to an
understanding of the Legislature's operations. The requested records are,
therefore, "legislative records" subject to disclosure unless they are specifically
exempt under the Act. (Gov. Code § 9072.)

In this case, the Assembly claimstiierecords are exempt from disclosure on

three grounds: (I) as "preliminary drafts, notes, or legislative memoranda" under
Government Code § 9075(a); (ii) as "correspondence" of and to members of the
Legislature and their staffs under Government Code § 9075(h); and (iii) as
records that are exempted or prohibited from disclosure under the "deliberative
process privilege," made applicable by Government Code § 9075(1).^

A. The Preliminary Writings Exemption

The Assembly's reliance on the "preliminary drafts" exemption is misplaced.

Even ifthe requested budget documents qualify as "drafts, notes, or
memoranda," the exemption only applies to "preliminary" drafts, notes, or

^ It is noteworthy, but not dispositive, that the Assembly did not explicitly refer to the "deliberative
process privilege" or Govemment Code § 9075. subdivision (i). in responding to the record
requests. (Cf. Vallejos v. Califomia Highway Patrol {A^l^) 89 Cal.App.3d 781,787 [concluding
exemption can be waived under CPRA if not asserted before disclosure].) .

Page 7 of 12
memoranda. The records sought bytiieNews Organizations are not
"preliminary" draft or proposed budgets, but approved budget allocations.

The fact that an approved budget could be modified again at some later point In
time does not render It a "preliminary" writing. If the exemption were construed
this broadly, virtually every document related to the Assembly's business would
be exempt fi'om disclosure, since virtually every document could, at least In
theory, be modified at some later point In time.

The court's interpretation is supported by case law construing analogous

exemptions for preliminary writings under the California Public Records Act
(CPRA) and the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Those cases
establishtiiatthe purpose oftiiepreliminary writings exemption is to protect pre-
declsional, deliberative materials that are part of the decisionmaking process.
{Citizens for a Better Environment, supra, 171 Cal.App.Sd at pp.712-714; see
also Ryan v. Department of Justice (D.C. Cir. 1980) 617 F.2d 781,789-791;
Bureau of Nat'l Affairs v. Department of Justice (D.C. Cir. 1984) 742 F.2d 1484.
1496-1497 [distinguishing pre-decisional budget advice or recommendations
from adopted budgetary decisions].) The exemption does not apply to writings
that implement or communicate a final decision, and the exemption does not
apply to purely factual material unless the manner of presenting those facts
would reveal the deliberative process or the facts are inextricably intertwined with
the deliberative process. {Ibid.; see also 89 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 39 (Feb. 28,
2006).)

The text and context of the preliminary writings exemption in the Open Records
Act suggest it hastiiesame essential purpose as the analogous exemptions in
the CPRA and FOIA. Accordingly, this court follows the reasoning of the state
and federal case law construing those cognate exemptions.

Applying this rule, the court concludes that the requested budget records are not
exempt as preliminary drafts, notes, or memoranda. While proposed budget
allocations or budget recommendations likely would fall within the confines ofthe
exemption, approved budget allocations represent afinaldecision to allocate
funds or modify an Assemblymember's office budget. Therefore, the records
cannot be withheld under the preliminary writings exemption.

B. The Deliberative Process Privileoe

Another potential exemption closely related to the preliminary writings exemption

is the deliberative process privilege, made applicable by Government Code §
9075, subdivision (i).

Under the deliberative process privilege, officials of all three branches of

government enjoy a qualified, limited privilege not to disclose or be examined
concerning not only the mental processes by which a given decision was

PageSof 12
reached, but also the substance of conversations and materials reflecting the
advice, opinions, and recommendations comprising part of the decisionmaking
process. {Regents ofthe Univ. of Cal. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 509,
540.*) The deliberative process privilege reflects a concern that the quality of
decisionmaking may suffer if prematurely exposed to public scrutiny. {Ibid.)

The key question when the deliberative process privilege is invoked is whether
the disclosure of materials would expose the decisionmaking process in such a
way as to discourage candid discussion within the government and thereby
undermine the government's ability to perform its functions. {\Mlson v. Superior
Court (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1136,1146.) In determining whether materials fall
within the parameters ofthe privilege, courts have drawn a distinction between
predecisional communications, which are privileged, and communications made
after the decision and designed to explain it, which are not. {Times Mirror, supra,
53 Cal.Sd at p.1341.) Courts also have recognized that the privilege requires
different treatment for materials reflecting deliberative or policymaking processes
on the one hand, and purelyfactualor investigative matters on the other.* {Ibid.)

Furtiier. even when the common law privilege applies, it is only a qualified
privilege. A litigant may obtain deliberative materials if his or her need for the
materials overrides the government's interest in non-disclosure. (See FTC V:
Warner Communications, Inc. (9th Cir. 1984) 742 F.2d 1156; United States v.
Nixon (1974) 418 U.S. 683, 711-712; Miller v. Super/or Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th
883, 900; see also Califomia First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court {^998)
67 Cal.App.4th 159,172.)

The court concludes that the records at issue here are not protected by the
deliberative process privilege because, as discussed above in regard to the
preliminary writings exemption, the requested records are not predecisional,
deliberative communications.

Moreover, even if the requested records might implicate some deliberative

process on the part ofthe members witii regard to their individual budgets, the
court is persuaded that the strong public Interest in disclosure ouhweighs any
reasons for keeping the records secret

C. The Correspondence Exemption

The Assembly also cannot withhold the requested records under the
"correspondence" exemption.

The Assembly argues that the language of this exemption is broad on its face
and applies to all internal and external written communications of legislators and

^ Regents, a Brown Act case, has been superseded by statute on unrelated grounds.
^ Courts have recognized, however, that the privilege may extend to factual materials which
would reveal the thought processes of the government decisionmaker.

Page 9 of 12
staff. The court does not agree that the term "con-espondence" can be
interpreted so broadly.

Ifthe Legislature had intended the term "correspondence" to mean

"communications." it presumably would have said so. Indeed. In both subdivision
(d) and (j). the Legislature used the ternh "communications" in describing other
exemptions under the Open Records Act The Legislature therefore must have
intended the term "con'espondence" to mean something other than all
"communications."

Although no court decision has interpreted the term correspondence for purposes
of the Open Records Act. the Califomia Supreme Court has analyzed the
meaning of "correspondence" for purposes ofthe California Public Records Act

In Times Min-or Co. v. Superior Court {^99^) 53Cal.3d 1325, the California
Supreme Court determined that the term "correspondence" refers to external
"communications by letter," rejecting an argument that the term correspondence
encompasses internal written communications between the Governor and his
staff. {Id. at p.1337; see also Califomia First Amendment Coalition v. Superior
Court {1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 159,167-169 [applying the Supreme Court's
interpretation to letters and application forms received by the Governor's office].)

The language chosen by the Legislature fortiieexemption in the Open Records

Act is virtually identical to the analogous CPRA exemption in Government Code
§ 6254, subdivision (I). Whereas tiie Open Records Act exempts
correspondence of and to members of the Legislature and their staff, the CPRA
exempts correspondence of and to the Governor or employees oftiie Governor's
office. (Cf. Gov. Code §§ 6254(1), 9075(h).)

A temi having a specific meaning in one area ofthe law ordinarily should be
construed similarly elsewhere. This is particularly true where the same term is'
used in a similar manner in related statutes dealing with the same subject matter.
(See McAllister v. Califomia Coastal Com. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4tii 912, 945;
People V. Casillas (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 171,183; in re Do Kyung K. (2001) 88
Cal.App.4th 583, 589.)

Further, when the Legislature amends a statute witiiout altering the portions that
were judicially construed, the Legislature is presumed to have been aware of and
to have acquiesced in the previous judicial construction. {Estate ofMcDill (1975)
14 Cal.Sd 831, 838; In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.Sd 855, 868-869.) The
Legislature has amended § 6254 of the CPRA multipletimessince the Times
Mirror decision, without altering the "correspondence" language ofthe
exemption, suggesting acquiescence in the Supreme Court's judicial construction
of that term.

Page 10 of 12
Likewise, the Legislature has amended § 9075 ofthe Open Records Act several
times since the Times Minor decision, also witiiout altering the "correspondence"
language of the exemption. Since the Legislature Is presumed to know that
similar words or phrases in statutes dealing witii the same subject matter
ordinarily will be given the same interpretation, this too is persuasive evidence
that the Legislature intended the construction placed on that term by the
Supreme Court.

Moreover, to interpret the term "correspondence" as broadly as the Assembly

suggests would permit the Legislature to shield any document from public view
simply by transmitting ft to any Assembly member and/or his or her staff. It
would, in effect, shield every written communication within the Assembly, and it
would allow any Assembly member or staff to shield any record in his or her
possession simply by "passing" it to any otiier member or staff person. Nothing
intiielegislative history suggests the correspondence exemption was intended to
keep secret any document that might be passed beh/veen or among members or
their staff. Such an exemption would cleariy swallow the rule of public access,
rendering the adoption ofthe Open Records Act a largely futile act. This cannot
have been the Legislature's intent.

The reasoning in 7/mes Mirror is persuasive. The correspondence exemption

was only meant to shield external (tiiird-party) communications by letter to
members ofthe Legislature and their staff, to insure that individuals and entities
outside tiie Legislature would not be chilled in their ability to communicate witii
their elected representatives.^

The Assembly's reliance on Zumbrun Law Firm v. Califomia Legislature (2008)

165 Cal.App.4th 1603, is misplaced. Zumbrun concluded that Proposition 59 did
not nullify existing Open Records Act exemptions. But the parties in Zumbrun did
not contest and therefore the Court did not decide, whetiier the particular
documents withheld fell within correspondence exemption. (See Zumbrun,
supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at p.1620 fn.10.) Thus, the Court never considered
whether the documents withheld constituted "correspondence" within the scope
of the exemption.

Applying the Times /W/rror definition to this case, the court is persuaded thatthe
requested budget allocations and summaries do not qualify as "correspondence"
exempt from disclosure under the Open Records Act

^ Under this construction, there is admittedly some overiap between § 9075, subdivisions (h) and
(j). However, they would not be redundant because subdivision (j) applies to all
"communications," not just written communications by letter, and subdivision Q) is limited to
"private citizens," whereas subdivision (h) would include public and private entities which are not
citizens.
^ Even ifthe con-espondence exemption were interpreted to protect intemal communications by
letter, the court is persuaded the exemption would not apply here. Communicated or not, the
budget records are simply not "correspondence."

Page 11 of 12
D. The Financial Reporting Requirements

The Assembly claimstiiatbecause the Legislature included certain mandatory

financial reporting requirements In AB 23 (codified at Government Code §§ 9131
and 9132), tiie court should infer an exemption for anyfinancialrecords that do
notfallwithin the mandatory reporting requirement

However, the rule on which the Assembly relies - that a specific statute prevails
over a general statute - applies only ifthe statutes are so inconsistent that the
two cannot have concurrent operation. (See Boghos v. Certain Undenvriters at
Lloyd's of London (2005) 36 Cal.4th 495.504; Civ. Proc. Code § 1859.) If
statutes reasonably can be construed to avoid conflict that construction must be
adopted. {Walters v. Weed (1988) 45 Cal.Sd 1.9.)

Here, there Is no conflict Sections 9132 and 9133 describefinancialinfonnation

that must be reported to tiie public every year - whether or not it is requested.
This obligation is distinct from the obligation to disclose legislative records when
they are requested under section 9074. Compliance with sections 9132 and
9133 certainly does not interfere with, or in any way conflict with, the
Legislature's obligation to make non-exempt legislative records available for
inspection. Thefactthat the Legislature mandated certainfinancialinformation
that must be generated and publicly released in an annual report does not imply
tiiat ali otherfinancialinformation should be kept secret

The Legislature knows how to create statutory exemptions when it chooses to do

so. There is no exemption forfinancialrecords in the Open Records Act The
court rejects the Assembly's invitation to make a new exemption out of whole
cloth. Sections 9131 and 9132 simply do not abrogate tiie general rule requiring
disclosure of legislative records.

V.
Disposition

The petition is granted. Petitioner News Organizations shall be entitied to

recover their costs upon appropriate application. The court resen/es jurisdiction
to award attorney fees pursuant to a proper andtimelymotion by Petitioners.

Page 12 of 12
EXHIBIT B
 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 12/02/2011 TIME: 09:00:00 AM DEPT: 29
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Timothy Frawley
CLERK: F. Temmennan
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

CASE NO: 34-2011-80000929-CU-WM-GDSCASE INIT.DATE: 08/05/2011

CASE TITLE: Los Angeles Times Communications LLC vs. California Legislature
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited

EVENT TYPE: Petition for Writ of Mandate - Writ of Mandate

APPEARANCES

Nature of Proceedings: Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate.

With no parties requesting argument the Court's Tentative Ruling Issued yesterday, December 1, 2011.
became the flnal ruling of the Court (see separate filling).
Counsel for Petitioners are directed to prepare a fonnal judgment consistent with the Court's ruling.

DATE: 12/02/2011 MINUTE ORDER Pagel

DEPT: 29 Calendar No.
 Proof of Service

I, Ellen Duncan, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia
that the following is true and correct:
I am employed in the City and County of Los Angeles, State of California, in the office of a
member of the bar ofthis court, at whose direction the service was made. I am over the age of
eighteen (18) years, and not a party to or interested in the within-entitied action. I am an employee
of DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, and my business address is 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite
2400, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
On December 23,2011,1 caused to be served the following document:
iPROPOSED) JUDGMENT GRANTING LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS
LLC AND MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC. DBA THE SACRAMENTO BEE'S
VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND AWARDING ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND COSTS
10 I caused the above document to be served on each person below by the following means:
11 @ I enclosed a tme and correct copy of said document in an envelope and placed it for collection
and mailing with the United States Post Office following the ordinary busmess practice.
12

13 Robin B. Johansen, Esq.

rjohansen(^rjp.com
14 Thomas A. Willis, Esq.
twillis@rjp.com
15 REMCHO, JOHANSEN & PURCELL, LLP
201 Dolores Avenue
16 San Leandro, CA 94577
17

18 I am readily familiar with myfirm'spractice for collection and processing of

correspondence for delivery in the manner indicated above, to wit, that correspondence will be
19 deposited for collection La the above-described maimer this same day in the ordinary course of
business. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of C^ifomia, that the
20 foregoing is trae and correct
21 Executed on December 23,2011, at Los Angeles, Califomia.
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE
DWT18748830V1 0026175-000405
 Suite 2400
jfiJ Davis Wright 865 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566
li!! Tremaine LLP Rochelle L. Wilcox
213.633:6800 tel
213.633.6899 fex

rochellewilcox@dwtcom

December 23,2011
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Honorable Timothy Frawley
Dept. 29
Sacramento County Superior Court
720 9tii Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Los Angeles Times Communications LLC. McClatchy Newspapers. Inc. v. The
Califomia Legislature. The Assembly Committee on Rules, and Nancy Skiimer.
as Chair of the Assembly Committee on Rules. Sacramento County Superior
Court Case No. 34-2011-80000929

Dear Judge Frawley:

Pursuant to Califomia Rule of Court 3.1312, we enclose vvith this letter the following
documents: (1) Stipulation For Entry Of Judgment Awarding Los Angeles Times
Communications LLC and McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. Their Attorneys' Fees And Costs
Incurred During Prior Trial Court Proceedings; (2) [Proposed] Judgment Granting Los Angeles
Times Communications LLC and McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. dba The Sacramento Bee's
Verified Petition For Writ OfMandate And Awarding Attomeys' Fees And Costs; and
(3) [Proposed] Writ Of Mandamus Directed To The Califomia Legislature, The Califomia
Assembly Committee On Rules, And Nancy Skiimer As Chair Of The Califomia Assembly
Committee On Rules. The [Proposed] Judgment and [Proposed] Writ have been reviewed by
Respondents' counsel and, following negotiation as to their terms, they were approved by
Respondents. We respectfiilly request that the Court enter the enclosed [Proposed] Judgment
and [Proposed] Writ.
Sincerely,

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

RLW:ejd
Enclosures-
cc: Robin Johansen, Esq.
Thomas A. Willis, Esq.
Margaret R. Prinzig, Esq.
DWT 18748763VI 0026175-000405
Anchorage New York Seattle
Bellcvuc Portland Shanghai
Los Angeles San Frandsco Washington. D.C. www.dwt.com
 DAVIS WRIGI-IT TREMAINE LLP
KELLI L. SAGER (SlaloBarNo. 120162)
ke]lisager(@dwt.com
ROCHELLE L. WILCOX (State Bar No. 197790)
rochellew51cox@dwtcom
JONATHAN L. SEGAL (State BarNo. 264238)
4 865 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, Califomia 90017-2566
5 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 / Fax: (213) 633-6899

6 LOS ANGELES 'HMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC

KARLENE GOLLER (State BarNo. 147065)
7 202 West Firsl Sireet
Los Angeles, Califomia 90012
8 Telephone: (213) 237-3760 / Fax: (213) 237-3810
y MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC., dba
THE SACRAMKNTO BEE
10 STEPHEN BURNS (State BarNo. 105312)
2100 Q Street
11 Sacramento, Calilbmia 95816-6899
Telephone: (916) 321-1926/Fax (916) 326-5586
12
AUomeys for Petitioners
13 LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC
and MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC. dba THE
lA SACRAMENTO BEE

15
16 SUPERJOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

17 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

IK
19 LOS ANGELES TIMES CaseNo. 34-2011-80000929
COMMUNICATIONS LLC; MCCLATCHY
20 NEWSPAPERS, INC. dba THE STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF
SACRAMENTO BEE, JUDGMENT AWARDING LOS ANGELES
21 TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC ANO
Petitioners, MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC.
22 THEIR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS
vs. INCURRED DURING PRIOR TRIAL
23 COURT PROCEEDINGS
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE;
24 CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY COMMIITEE [Cal. Gov't Code § 9078]
ON RULES; NANCY SKINNER AS CHAIR
25 OFTHECALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY Assigned to the lion. Timothy Frawley
COMMITTEE ON RULLS, Dept. 29
26
Respondents.
27
28

STIPULA I ION RK PETmONERS' FEES AMD COSTS

DWT Ig7iwnivl 0026I75-00W05
 I Petitioners Los Angeles Times Communications LLC and McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., dba
the Sacramento Bee (collectively, "Petitioners'^, by and through their attorneys Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP. and Respondents California Legislature, Califomia Assembly Committee on Rules,
4
and Nancy Skinner as Chair ofthe California Assembly Committee on Rules ("Respondents"), by
5
and through their attorneys Remcho, Johansen & Purcell LLP, hereby stipulate and agree as
6
follows:
7
WHEREAS, Petitioners prevailed in litigation filed pursuant to the Legislative Open
8
Records Act ("LORA") and therefore are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys' fees and
9
costs incurred intiiismatter pursuant to California Government Code § 9078; and,
10
Wl IfiREAS, Petitioners incurred at least $73,707.54 in attorneys' fees and costs in litigating
11
this matter; and,
12
WHEREAS, Respondents have agreed to enter into this Stipulation for Emry ofjudgment
13
10 reimburse Peiilioncrs for the aUomcys' fees and costs incunred in litigating this matter, rather
14
than incur additional expenses forthe litigation ofany fee motion Petitioners otherwise would file;
15
and,
16
WHEREAS, Respondents have further agreed to expedite paymenl to bc made to
17
Petitioners' counsel in satisfaction of the Judgment to be entered by this Court and to request lhat
18
the Conlrollcr issue such payment no later than December 31,2011; and,
19
WHEREAS, this Stipuladon is intended be a full andfinalresolution of Petitioners' claim
20
for attorneys' fees and costs incurred through the date ofthis Stipulation, but is not intended to bar
21
a further motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the event there is fiirther litigation between these
22
parties, or if Petitioners are required to take steps to enforce the Judgment in thi.s action.
23
NOW, THEREFORE,flicparties DO HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE as follows:
24
1. Pursuant to California Government Code § 9078, Petitioners bc awarded, and
25
Respondents be ordered to pay to Petitioners, Petitioners' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
26
incurred in this matter through the date of this Stipulation, in the lolal amount of $73,707.54, which
27
28

1 DAVISWAIGHITREMAINELLP
STIPULATION Rb PETITIONERS' FEES AND COSTS ,J*^UI^iZ^k^i^o,'Z.,*
UWT I87I930lvl (K)2fil75-000405 F.l"t?i"w/-!S«»
 Respondents will request that the Controller pay to Davis Wright Tremaine LLP no later than
December 31,2011.
2. The parties jointiy request this Court to enter judgment in favor of Petitioners, and
against Respondents, for attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $73,707.54.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties request that the Court enter judgment as set forth above.

DATED: December 22,2011 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP

8 KELLI L. SAGER
ROCHELLE L. WILCOX
9 JONATHAN L. SEGAL

10 LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC

KARLENE GOLLER
11
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC.,
12 dba THE SACRAMENTO BEE
13
14
kfelHL. Sager
15
Attomeys for Petitioners
16 LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC and
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC. dba THE
17 SACRAMENTO BEE
18
19 DATED: December 22,2011 REMCHO, JOHANSEN & PURCELL LLP
ROBIN JOHANSEN
20 THOMAS A. WILLIS
MARGARET R. PRINZING
21
22 By:
Robin Johansen
23
Attomeys for Respondents
24 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, CALIFORNIA
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON RULES and NANCY
25 SKINNER AS CHAIR OF THECALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON RULES
26
27
28

DAYISWRIGHTTREMAINELLP
863 S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
STIPULATION RE PETITIONERS' FEES AND COSTS LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA900l7-25<«
DWT 18719301V1 0026175-000405 (213)633-<Ma
Filx:(2l3)63].6>»9
 Respondents will request fhat the Controller pay lo Davis Wright Tremaine 1 -LP no later Uian
December 31.2011.
2. The parties jointly request this Court to enter judgment in favor of Petitioners, and
4
against Respondents, for attorneys' fees and costs in lhe amount of $73,707.54.
5
NOW, Tl lEREFORE, the parties request that the Court enter judgment as set forth above.
6
7
DATED: December 22,2011 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
8 KELLI L. SAGER
ROCHELLE L. WILCOX
9 JONATHAN L. SEGAL

10 LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC

KARLENE GOLLER
11
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC.,
12 dba THE SACRAMENTO BEE
STEPHEN BURNS
13
14 By:.
Kelli L. Sager
15
Attomeys for Petitioners
16 LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC and
MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC. dba THE
17 SACRAMENTO BEE
IS
19 DATED: December 22,2011 RKMCHO, JOHANSEN & PURCELL LLP
ROBIN JOHANSEN
20 THOMAS A. WILLIS
MARGARET R. PRINZING
21
22
23
Attorneys for Respondents
24 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, CALIFORNIA
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON RULES and NANCY
25 SKINNER AS CHAIR OF THECALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY
COMMllTEH ON RULES
26
27
28

DAYiswnicnrrnEMAiNELLP
STIPULATION RE PETITIONERS" FEES AND COSTS • Ul.« nCUFJinA.ST..SI»TF.14M
LUS AMC:i-L12>.CALIl'OKNlA<invl7-2.''li>
DWT 1871930Ivl 0026175-000405 |tl3)(]J.410a
Fu-(213)6]l.CtH
 Proof of Service

I, Ellen Duncan, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Califomia
that the following is trae and correct:
I am employed m the City and County of Los Angeles, State of Califomia, in the office of a
member of the bar of this court, at whose direction the service was made. I am over the age of
eighteen (18) years, and not a party to or interested in the within-entitled action. I am an employee
of DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, and my business address is 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite
2400, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
On December 23,2011,1 caused to be served the following document:
[STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AWARDING LOS ANGELES TIMES
COMMUNICATIONS LLC AND MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC. THEIR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS INCURRED DURING PRIOR TRIAL COURT
PROCEEDINGS
10 I caused the above document to be served on each person below by the following means:
11 SI I enclosed a trae and correct copy of said document in an envelope and placed it for collection
and mailing with the United States Post Office following the ordinary business practice.
12

13 Robin B. Johansen, Esq.

rjobansen@rjp.com
14 Thomas A. Willis, Esq.
twillis@rjp.com
15 REMCHO, JOHANSEN & PURCELL, LLP
201 Dolores Avenue
16 San Leandro, CA 94577
17

18 I am readily familiar with my finn's practice for collection and processing of

correspondence for delivery in the manner indicated above, to wit, that correspondence will be
19 deposited for collection in the above-described manner this same day in the ordinary course of
business. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of Califomia, that the
20 foregoing is trae and correct.
21 Executed on December 23,2011, at Los Angeles, CaUfomia.
22

23 lien Duncan

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE
DWT 18748830V1 0026175-000405
 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
KELLI L. SAGER (State BarNo. 120162)
2 kcllisager@dwt.com
ROCHELLE L. WILCOX (State BarNo. 197790)
rochellewilcox@dwt.com
JONATHAN L. SEGAL (State BarNo. 264238)
865 S. Figueroa Sti-eet, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, Califomia 90017-2566
Telephone: (213) 633-6800 / Fax: (213) 633-6899
LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC
KARLENE GOLLER (State BarNo. 147065)
202 West First Street
Los Angeles, Califomia 90012
Telephone: (213) 237-3760 / Fax: (213) 237-3810

9 MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC., dba

THE SACRAMENTO BEE
10 STEPHEN BURNS (State BarNo. 105312)
2100 Q Street
11 Sacramento, Califomia 95816-6899
Telephone: (916) 321-1926/Fax (916) 326-5586
12
Attomeys for Petitioners
13 LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC
and MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC. dba THE
14 SACRAMENTO BEE
15
16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

17 FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

18
LOS ANGELES TIMES Case No. 34-2011-80000929
19 COMMUNICATIONS LLC; MCCLATCHY
NEWSPAPERS, INC. dba THE (PROPOSED] WRIT OF MANDAMUS
20 SACRAMENTO BEE,
DIRECTED TO THE CALIFORNIA
21 LEGISLATURE, THE CALIFORNIA
Petitioners, ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON RULES,
22 AND NANCY SKINNER AS CHAIR OF
vs. THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY
23 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE; COMMITTEE ON RULES
CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE
24 ON RULES; NANCY SKINNER AS CHAIR
Assigned to the Hon. Timothy Frawley
OF THECALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY Dept. 29
25 COMMITTEE ON RULES,
26 Respondents.
27
28

[PROPOSED] WRIT
DWT I8664342vl 0026175-000405
 TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON RULES, AND NANCY SKINNER AS CHAIR OF THE CALIFORNIA
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON RULES, Respondents:
WHEREAS, it is alleged in the Verified Petition of Los Angeles Times Communications
LLC and McClatchy Newspapers, Inc. dba the Sacramento Bee ("Petitioners") fhat you have
withheld certain documents that you are required to disclose under Cal. Gov't Code §§ 9070 et
seg,;
8 WHEREAS, it appears that Petitioners are parties that are beneficially interested in this
9 proceeding;
10 WHEREAS, it appearsfiromthe Verified Petition that Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and
11 adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law and that a writ of mandamus should issue; and
12 WHEREAS, the Judgment entered in this action orders that a writ of mandamus be issued
13 fi-om this Court;
14 NOW, THEREFORE, you are commanded to release to Petitioners complete copies of all
15 the documents and public records sought by the Verified Petition, as follows:
16 a. The records sought by the Verified Petition shall be released to the News Organizations
17 on a rolling basis, so that documents are released as soon as they have been reviewed
18 and copied, rather than waiting for thefinaldeadlines identified below;
19 b. All records sought by the Verified Petition other than Personnel Transaction Records
20 shall be released to the News Organizations no later than January 6,2012; and,
21
c. The Personnel Transaction Records shall be released to the News Organizations no later
22
than January 26,2012.
23
YOU ARE FURTHER COMMANDED to make andfilea retum to this Writ on or
24
before , 2012, setting forth what you have done to comply.
25
26
DATED: ,2011
27
CLERK OF THE COURT
28
By. _, Deputy Clerk
DAVISWRIGIITTKEMAINELLP
U I S. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
[PROPOSED] WRIT LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIAMDI7-2S66
DWT 18664342VI 0026175-000405 <213)«33-6<00
Fxt: (213) 633-6(99
 LET THE FOREGOING WRIT ISSUE.

DATED: , 2011
The Honorable Timothy Frawley
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

Submitted by:
9

10 DATED: December 22,2011

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
KELLI L. SAGER
12 ROCHELLE L. WILCOX
JONATHAN L. SEGAL
13
LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC
'4 KARLENE GOLLER
15 MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC.,
dba THEJSACRAMENTO BEE
16
17
18
Attomeys for Petitioners
19 LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC and
20 MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS, INC. dba THE SACRAMENTO BEE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2 DAVISWRICH-mtEMAINELLP
FPU n p n Q P m w n I T «** s. FIGUEROA ST, SUITE 2400
i r t \ . \ j r \ J O C . U ] WXVJ 1 LOSANCELES,CALIFORNIA900I7-2S66
(213)633-6100
Fax:(2l3>633-6»»
 Proof of Service

I , Ellen Duncan, declare under penalty of pegury under the laws of fhe State of Califomia
that fhe following is trae and correct:
I am employed in the City and Coimty of Los Angeles, State of California, in the office of a
member ofthe bar of this court, at whose direction the service was made. I am over the age of
eighteen (18) years, and not a party to or interested in the within-entitied action. I am an employee
of DAVIS WRIGHTTREMAINE LLP, and my business address is 865 South Figueroa Sttreet, Suite
2400, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
On December 23,2011,1 caused to be served the following document:
(PROPOSED] WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE
8 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY
COMMITTEE ON RULES, AND NANCY SKINNER AS CHAIR OF THE
9 CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY COMMTTTEE ON RULES
10 I caused the above document to be served on each person below by the following means:
11 @ I enclosed a trae and correct copy of said document in an envelope and placed it for collection
and mailing with the United States Post OfBce following the ordinary business practice.
12

13 Robin B. Johansen, Esq.

rjohansen@rjp.com
14 Thomas A. Willis, Esq.
twillis@rjp.com
15 REMCHO, JOHANSEN & PURCELL, LLP
201 Dolores Avenue
16 San Leandro, CA 94577
17

18 I am readily familiar with myfirm'spractice for collection and processing of

correspondence for delivery in the manner indicated above, to wit, that conrespondence will be
19 deposited for collection in the above-described manner this same day in the ordinary course of
business. I declare under penally ofperjury, under the laws of the State of Califomia, that the
20 foregoing is trae and correct.
21 Executed on December 23,2011, at Los Angeles, Califomia.
22 S>—.
23 »fi Duncan

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE
DWT 18748830V1 0026175-000405