Writ of Mandate by Life Legal Defense Foundation to Complel Disclosue of HWPP #171 Participants

8/2/2019 Writ of Mandate by Life Legal Defense Foundation to Complel Disclosue of HWPP #171 Participants

1/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28Michael Millen, Esq.

19 Calle Marguerita #100Los Gatos, CA 95032

(408) 871-0777

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND

DECLARATORY RELIEF

110CV172614 Page 1

Michael MillenAttorney at Law (#151731)119 Calle Marguerita Ste. 100Los Gatos, CA 95032Telephone: (408) 871-0777Fax: (408) 866-7480email: [email protected]

Attorney for Petitioner Life Legal Defense Foundation

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALFORNIA

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION,

Petitioner,

v.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA and BRENDA GEEDEPERALTA,

Respondents.

NO.:

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRITOF MANDAMUS ANDDECLARATORY RELIEF

[BY FAX]

1. This Petition is being brought pursuant to Government Code ("Gov.C.") 6250, et

seq., also known as the California Public Records Act ("CPRA").

2. Petitioners apply for an issuance of a writ of mandate under Gov.C. 6258 to inspect an

copy public records in the custody of a public agency as defined in Gov.C. 6252(d).

3. Petitioner Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) is a California corporation.

4. Respondent Board of Regents of the University of California (Regents) is

headquartered in Oakland, California, and respondent Brend Gee DePeralta is a public officer who

works for the Regents.

5. Venue is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 395,

because defendant Regents is based in Oakland, California.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



(408) 871-0777


DECLARATORY RELIEF

110CV172614 Page 2

6. On Jan. 27, 2012, attorneys for petitioner submitted to the Regents San Francisco

campus a written request for public records. A true and correct copy of that request is attached

hereto as Exhibit 1. Said request sought records in 10 categories of public records. Request #3 an

##6-9 were as follows:

3. copies of the accounting records for the last four years

6. the names/addresses of every physician who participated in the Project or performed

procedures within the Project from 2007 to the present

7. the names of all trainees from 2007 to present

8. the names of the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group for this Project

9. copies of all protocols, policies, and/or procedures for identifying, selecting, or

recruiting patients to participate in the Project

7. On February 9, 2012, having received no response to or even an acknowledgement of th

Request, Catherine Short of LLDF e-mailed Communications Coordinator Brenda Gee DePeralta

of the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost to check on the status of the request.

8. On February 10, Ms. DePeralta responded with a letter acknowledging receipt of the

Request.

9. On February 22, 2012, having received no further communication from UCSF

concerning the Request, Ms. Short again e-mailed Ms. DePeralta, seeking an update on the status

of the request and an estimate of the copying costs.

10. On February 28, 2012, still having received no response, Ms. Short again e-mailed Ms

DePeralta, stating that unless she received a substantive response to the request within seven

business days, she would pursue other remedies. Ms. DePeralta responded the next day, stating tha

she would provide a timeline for production the following day.

11. Three days later, on March 2, Ms. DePeralta responded by saying that review of the

documents was estimated to take another 14 days, at which time she would provide a page count

and cost of duplication, payment for which would be due in advance of production.


3/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



(408) 871-0777


DECLARATORY RELIEF

110CV172614 Page 3

12. On March 16, Ms. DePeralta sent a letter to petitioner, a true and correct copy of which

is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. That letter stated that 508 pages of responsive, non-privileged, non

exempt documents had been located but that that two categories of information would not be

provided: 1) names/addresses of physicians participating in the project and names of trainees

participating in the project, and 2) preliminary research data. Additionally, Ms. DePeralta stated

that she would provide either a status or update or a cost estimate for the accounting records by

March 29, 2012.

13. In response to Ms. DePeraltas letter, petitioner sent an email on March 21, 2012, a tru

and correct copy of which (along with the other emails in the chain) is attached hereto as Exhibit 3

That email stated in part that the Regents reasons for withholding documents were not legally

tenable and that all responsive documents should be produced. The letter further requested that the

Regents produce a log if they were going to persist with their purported exemptions.

14. In response to petitioners email of March 21, 2012, Ms. Gee sent to petitioner a letter

from University of California at San Francisco Deputy Campus Counsel Greta Schnetzler, on

behalf of respondent, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. That letter

stated in part that the names of physicians and trainees would not be produced.

15. Ultimately, 463 pages of documents were sent to petitioner on April 2, 2012. The

production did not include the following:

Request #3 - Copies of the accounting for the last 4 years

Request #6- Names of the participating physicians/trainers

Request #7- Names of all trainees

Request #8- Names of the Stakeholders

Request #9- Copies of all protocols as relates to recruiting patients

Respondents have provided no log, no timetable for production, nor cost estimate for these

missing items.

16. The documents sought by petitioner are public records. As such, it is required that they

be made available to members of the public for review upon request. Petitioner made a lawful


4/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



(408) 871-0777


DECLARATORY RELIEF

110CV172614 Page 4

request for said public records. Respondent has a duty to provide the public records in question to

members of the public who make a lawful request for inspection and copying and to do so without

delay.

17. Respondents have unlawfully withheld public records from Petitioners.

18. Petitioners petition this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, as per Gov.C. 6258,

requiring Respondent to provide, for inspection and copying, the documents described as items 3,

6, 7, 8, and 9 of Exhibit 1.

19. The issuance of the writ is indispensable to the enforcement of the Petitioners' right in

that Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law whereby

their rights can be upheld or whereby Respondents can be compelled to comply with the CPRA. If

the relief sought by this petition is not granted, great and irreparable injury will be

caused to Petitioners.

PRAYER

1. That the Court issue an alternative Writ of Mandamus commanding Respondents to

comply with Gov.C. 6253 or to show cause before this Court at a time specified by Court order

why it has not done so and why a peremptory writ should not issue;

2. That, on the return of the alternative writ and the hearing of this Petition, this Court issue

its peremptory Writ of Mandamus commanding Respondent to provide, for inspection and copying

the documents requested in this Petition;

3. For reasonable attorney fees;

4. For taxable costs of suit incurred herein;

5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: April 13, 2012

MICHAEL MILLEN,ESQ.ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF


5/24


6/24

Dana Cody, Esq.

Executive Director

Catherine W. Short, Esq.Legal Director

Mary Riley

Adminis trative Dir ector

Allison K. Aranda, Esq.

Senior Staff Counsel

B o ard o f D i recto rsJohn R. Streett, Esq.

Chairman

Dana Cody, Esq.

Marcella Tyler Ketelhut

Terry L. Thompson, Esq.

Colette Wilson, Esq.

Anthony E. Wynne, JD

A dv i so ry B o ardThe Hon. Steve Baldwin

San Diego, California

The Rev. Michael R. Carey, OP, JD

Colorado

Daniel Cathcart, Esq.

Los Angeles, California

The Hon. William P. Clark

Paso Robles, California

Raymond Dennehy, PhD.

San Francisco, California

The Rev. Joseph D. Fessio, SJ

San Francisco, California

The Hon. Ray Haynes

Riverside, California

James Hirsen, Esq.

Riverside, California

The Hon. Howard Kaloogian

Los Angeles, California

David Llewellyn, Esq.

Sacramento, California

Anne J. OConnor, Esq.

New Jersey

Charles E. Rice, Esq.

South Bend, Indiana

Ben Stein, Esq.

West Hollywood, California

Andrew Zepeda, Esq.Beverly Hills, California

N o rthe rn Ca l i f o rn i a (Administration)

P.O. Box 2105

Napa, California 94558

(707) 2246675

S o uthern Ca l i f o rn i a P.O. Box 1313

Ojai, California 93024

(805) 6401940

LLD F.o r g LIFE: AT THE HEART OF THE LAW

January27,2012

BrendaGeeDePeraltaUniversityofCalifornia,SanFranciscoBox0402,S24SanFrancisco,CA94143VIAELECTRONICTRANSMISSIONRequestforDocuments/Information

Inorabout2007,theRegentsoftheUniversityofCaliforniasponsoreda

HealthWorkforcePilotProject(HWPP)#171,undertheauspicesofthe

ANSIRHorAdvancingNewStandardsinReproductiveHealthprogram

atUCSanFrancisco.TheProjectoperatesunderamechanismofthe

CaliforniaOfficeofStatewideHealthPlanningandDevelopment.The

Projectison-goingandisunderthedirectionofPatriciaAndersonandPhilipDarney,M.D.ofUCSFwiththeBixbyCenterforReproductiveHealth.

Werequestthefollowing:

1.acopyoftheApplication

2.acopyofeachProjectReportandExtensionRequestforthelastfour

years

3.copiesoftheaccountingrecordsforthelastfouryears

4.copiesofanywaiversorotherdocumentspurportingtorelieve

"trainees"ofpotentialcivilorcriminalliabilityforperformingabortionsin

violationofCalifornialaw

5.thenames/addressesofalltheinstitutionsortrainingsitesorhealth

facilitiesorclinicswhichwereusedinthisproject

6.thenames/addressesofeveryphysicianwhoparticipatedintheProjectorperformedprocedureswithintheProjectfrom2007tothepresent

7.thenamesofalltraineesfrom2007topresent

8.thenamesofthemembersoftheStakeholderAdvisoryGroupforthis

Project

Exhibit 1


7/24

LIFE: AT THE HEART OF THE LAW

LLDF.org 2

9.copiesofallprotocols,policies,and/orproceduresforidentifying,selecting,orrecruiting

patientstoparticipateintheProject

10.copiesofalldocuments,includingconsentorwaiverforms,providedtopatientswho

participatedintheProject,relatingtosuchparticipation.

Verytrulyyours,

CatherineShort


8/24

Exhibit 2


9/24


10/24

Subject: Re: UCSF CPRA 012014

From: Kae Short

Date: 3/21/2012 3:14 PM

To: "Gee, Brenda"

CC: "Canning, Marcia (Legal)"

Dear Ms. DePeralta:Thank you for your letter of March 16, 2012. Our check should have arrived at your oficeyesterday, so we look forward to receiving the documents you have agreed to produce veryshortly.

Please consider this letter as our attempt to meet and confer regarding the objections youhave raised to the remaining documents.

You irst object that the names of physicians and trainees is exempt from disclosure underthe teachings ofJudicialWatch,Inc.v.FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 152-153 (D.C. Cir. 2006). Weappreciate thatJudicialWatch,Inc.case does teach that palpable threats of violence maytake precedence over disclosing names pursuant to a FOIA request where that disclosureserves no visible public interest. In this case, the requested information serves a visiblepublic interest in determining whether the University is conducting a program whichfacilitates and encourages mid-level health care professionals to practice medicine withouta license. Further, we are aware of no palpable threats related to disclosing the informationrequested. Thus, we believe the case to be inapplicable.

However, rather than debating the iner points of FOIA, we would simply note that thisrequest was not made under FOIA but rather was made under the California Public RecordsAct. California courts have thoroughly explored the concept of withholding information onthe grounds of safety and security, and have clearly spoken to the concept, to wit:1) If the topic in question is one which generally arouses passions (e.g., the death penalty),then the public interest in the information is heightened and the state can justif[y]nondisclosure only to the extent it may show that disclosure of that information wouldpose a potential security threat of some sort. ACLUv.SuperiorCourt(Dept. of Corrections)(2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 71.

2) Courts hold that [a] mere assertion of possible endangerment is insuficient to justifynondisclosure and that a potential for mischief is insuficient. CommissiononPeaceOficerStandards&Trainingv.SuperiorCourt (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, 301-302; reafirmedatLongBeachPoliceOficersAssn.v.CityofLongBeach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 292, ___, 136Cal.Rptr.3d 868, 886.

3) This case is reminiscent of the CommissiononPeaceOficerStandards case cited above,

Re: UCSF CPRA 012014 mailbox:///C:/LocalDocs/Thunderbird/Thunderbird Data/In

of 6 4/4/2012 6:1Exhibit 3
mailto:%[email protected]%3Emailto:%[email protected]%3Emailto:%[email protected]%3Emailto:%[email protected]%3E


11/24

in which our Supreme Court analyzed as follows:[T]he Commission argued that persons who were hostile toward law enforcement oficersgenerally (though not toward a particular individual oficer) might use the list of names tolocate peace oficers addresses through other means (such as Internet resources) andharass them. It offered no evidence that such a scenario is more than speculative, or even

that it is feasible. Furthermore, by virtue of the visibility of their activities in thecommunity, the identity of many oficers is well known or readily obtainable. TheCommission has not provided any convincing rationale for its assertion that disclosing acomprehensive list of oficers names and employing departments (with the exceptionsnoted above) would increase the threat to oficer safety presented by those with ageneralized hostility toward law enforcement oficers.

CommissiononPeaceOficerStandards&Trainingv.SuperiorCourt(2007) 42 Cal.4th 278,302-303Here, the information sought will likely consist of doctors, nurses, and other professionals

who are licensed by the State of California and whose activities are visible in thecommunity. The Regents can no more justify their withholding of the identify of thesepersons any more than the POST Commission could justify withholding the names of policeoficers.

Your second objection has to do with producing preliminary research data on the groundsof academic freedom. We assume that this is only referring to request #2 which requestsa copy of each Project Report and Extension Request for the last four years. We wouldirst note that a Project Report would seem to be different than preliminary researchdata. More importantly, we are unaware of any California statute or case law which allowsan agency to withhold a document on the grounds of academic freedom. In any case, ifyou persist in this objection to providing the Project Reports and Extension Requests (orany other document responsive to our request), we would request that you produce somesort of a log detailing the documents withheld on these grounds along with suficientinformation so as to enable us to evaluate your claim for withholding the document.We would like to avoid litigating this matter in the Superior Court but are prepared to do soif we cannot amicably resolve your objections within the next ive business days, i.e., byMarch 28, 2012. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if you will be providing therelevant data within that time frame.

Sincerely,

_____________________________________Catherine W. Short, Esq.

Legal Director

Life Legal Defense Foundation805-640-1940

[email protected]


of 6 4/4/2012 6:1


12/24

On Mar 16, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Gee, Brenda wrote:

Dear Ms. Short:Attached is my letter to you regarding the status of the searchconducted in response to PRA 012014.Sincerely,Brenda Gee DePeraltaCommunications CoordinatorUniversity of California, San FranciscoOffice of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost513 Parnassus Avenue, S-24San Francisco, CA 94143-0402(415) 476-4317 [email protected]

From: Katie Short [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:49 PMTo: Gee, BrendaCc: Canning, Marcia (Legal)Subject: Fwd: UCSF CPRA 012014

Dear Ms. Gee:

It is now over a month since I submitted the attached public records act

request. After I first submitted it, you did not even acknowledge the request

until I e-mailed you 12 days after it was submitted. Hearing nothing more, I

followed up with this e-mail on February 22, to which you have not

responded.


of 6 4/4/2012 6:1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


13/24

Unless I receive a substantive response to my request within the next seven

business days, I will assume that you do not intend to take any further steps

to comply with this request and that I should pursue other remedies to get

the requested documents.


Legal Director


[email protected]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Katie Short

Date: February 22, 2012 7:17:58 PM PST

To: "Gee, Brenda"

Bcc: "[email protected]"

Subject: Re: UCSF CPRA 012014

Ms. Gee:

I am following up on the above-reference CPRA request. Could you tell me

whether all the relevant, non-exempt documents have been located? If they

are ready, could you provide me with a cost estimate for obtaining hard

copies, and where the documents are available for inspection without

copying.

Very truly yours,



of 6 4/4/2012 6:1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


14/24

Legal Director


[email protected]

On Feb 10, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Gee, Brenda wrote:

Dear Ms. Short:

Attached is acknowledgement of your January 27, 2012 CPRA request.

Hardcopy will be sent upon request.

Sincerely,

Brenda Gee DePeralta

Communications Coordinator

513 Parnassus Avenue, S-24

Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

University of California, San Francisco

(415) 476-4317 tel

-----Original Message-----From: Katie Short [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 11:24 PM

To: Gee, Brenda

Subject: California Public Records Act Request

Dear Ms. Peralta:

On January 27, I e-mailed you a letter requesting certain documents and

information pursuant to the California Public Records Act. I have receivedneither a response to that request nor even an acknowledgment of receiving

the request. Could you please inform me of the status of my request? A

copy of the letter is attached for your reference.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.


of 6 4/4/2012 6:1
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


15/24

Very truly yours,

Catherine Short

Legal Director

Life Legal Defense Foundation

P.O. Box 2105Napa, CA 94558

707.224.6675

707.337.6880 (c)

707.224.6676 (f)


of 6 4/4/2012 6:1


16/24

Exhibit 4


17/24


18/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



(408) 871-0777

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION

FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Page 1

Michael MillenAttorney at Law (#151731)119 Calle Marguerita Ste. 100Los Gatos, CA 95032Telephone: (408) 871-0777Fax: (408) 866-7480email: [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALFORNIA

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION,

Petitioner,

v.

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

NO.:

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES INSUPPORT OF PETITION FORWRIT OF MANDATE

[BY FAX]

Date:Time:Dept: 31

FACTS

On January 27, 2012, Petitioner Life Legal Defense Foundation ( LLDF) electronically

submitted to respondent University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) a request for

documents and information under the California Public Records Act (Government Code 6250, e

seq.).(See Exhibit 1 to the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Relief

(Petition) filed herewith.)

The request sought information pertaining to a project sponsored by the University of

California called Health Workforce Pilot Project #171. The Project operates under the auspices

of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development.

On February 9, 2012, having received no response to or even an acknowledgement of the

Request, Catherine Short of LLDF e-mailed Brenda DePeralta, Communications Coordinator for


19/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



(408) 871-0777


FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Page 2

UCSF) to check on the status of the request. On February 10, Ms. DePeralta responded with a lette

acknowledging receipt of the Request.

On February 22, 2012, having received no further communication from UCSF concerning

the Request, Ms. Short again e-mailed Ms. DePeralta, seeking an update on the status of the reques

and an estimate of the copying costs.

On February 28, 2012, still having received no response, Ms. Short again e-mailed Ms.

DePeralta, stating that unless she received a substantive response to the request within seven

business days, she would pursue other remedies. Ms. DePeralta responded the next day, stating tha

she would provide a timeline for production the following day.

Three days later, on March 2, Ms. DePeralta responded by saying that review of the

documents was estimated to take another 14 days, at which time she would provide Ms. Short with

the page count and cost of duplication, payment for which would be due in advance of production.

On March 16, Ms. DePeralta sent a letter to petitioner (Petition, Ex. 2). That letter stated

that 508 pages of responsive, non-privileged, non-exempt documents had been located but that that

two categories of information would not be provided: 1) names/addresses of physicians

participating in the project and names of trainees participating in the project, and 2) preliminary

research data. Additionally, Ms. DePeralta stated that she would provide either a status or update

or a cost estimate for the accounting records by March 29, 2012.

Ms. Short objected in writing to the withholding of the names of the physicians and trainees

participating in the project, as well as questioning the withholding of preliminary research data.

(Petition, Ex. 3.) Ms. Gee responded with a letter from Greta Schnetzler, Deputy Campus Counsel

for UCSF attempting to justify the withholding of names. (Petition, Ex. 4.)

Ultimately, 463 pages of documents were sent to petitioner on April 2, 2012. There has

been no other production of documents, no log, no timetable for production, nor a cost estimate for

the accounting and other records sought in the Request.


20/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



(408) 871-0777


FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Page 3

ARGUMENT

I. WRIT RELIEF IS APPROPRIATE TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITHCPRA

A superior court has the authority "to compel the performance of an act which the law

specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office..." (California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP"

I 085). In the present case, Respondent Regents is a "state agency" as per Gov. C. 6252(f) and

respondent Brenda Gee DePeralta is a "public official" (Gov. C. 6255 and 6259) authorized to

respond to a public records request and is the "officer or person charged with withholding

records." (Gov. C. 6259). Respondents have a duty to provide access to records, for inspection

and copying, to petitioner who has made a lawful request for said records as per Gov.C. 6253.

Petitioners have made a lawful request for public records and Respondents have failed tocomply with the document disclosure requirements found in Gov.C. 6253.

Any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or writ ofmandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or her right to inspect orto receive a copy of any public record or class of public records under this chapter.The times for responsive pleadings and for hearings in these proceedings shall be setby the judge of the court with the object of securing a decision as to these matters atthe earliest possible time.

Therefore, in this present case, there is direct legal authority for a writ of mandamus.

II. THE CPRA ESTABLISHES A PUBLIC POLICY THAT STRONGLY FAVORSDISCLOSURE OF RECORDS.

The California Public Records Act declares that "access to information concerning the

conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state."

(Gov.C. 6250.) Consequently, the disclosure requirements of the CPRA are to be interpreted

broadly. (Sutter's Place v. Superior Court(2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 170.)

Likewise, exemptions to the CPRA are construed narrowly. (California State Univ. v.

Superior Court(2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 810.) Moreover, since the passage of Proposition 59, the

goals of the CPRA have been elevated to constitutional status, requiring other statutes and court

rules to be construed so as to accomplish its aims. As the court stated in Savaglio v. Wal-Mart

Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 41h 588, 597, "Lest there be any question, Proposition 59


21/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



(408) 871-0777


FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Page 4

requires us to broadly construe a statute or court rule if it furthers the peoples right of access

and to narrowly construe the same 'if it limits the right of access. (quoting Cal. Const., art. I, 3,

subd. (b)(2)) (emphasis in original).

Both the CPRA and its interpretive case law make clear that any person has the right to

access public records. No justification for seeking the records need be made, and idle curiosity

is just as good a reason as any other. (Marylanderv. Superior Court(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1119,

1125).

III. RESPONDENTSREFUSAL TO GIVE RECORDS IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER ANYEXEMPTION.

A. Requests #3 and #9 (Accounting Records and Protocols)

Petitioners Request #3 was copies of the accounting records for the last four years, and

Request #9 was for copies of all protocols, policies, and/or procedures for identifying, selecting,

or recruiting patients to participate in the Project.

These have not been provided and respondents have not indicated why.

B. Requests #6-8 (Names of physicians, trainees, and stakeholders)

Requests #6-8 were as follows:

6. the names/addresses of every physician who participated in the Project orperformed procedures within the Project from 2007 to the present

7. the names of all trainees from 2007 to present

8. the names of the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group for this Project

Respondents have indicated that they are not required to disclose this information on

several different grounds. First, they cited toJudicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 152-153

(D.C. Cir. 2006), which held that palpable threats of violence may take precedence over disclosing

names pursuant to a FOIA request where that disclosure serves no visible public interest. That cas

was applying privacy protections under FOIA (and not CPRA), was fact-specific, and did not

provide for a categorical exemption for names of abortion providers.


22/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



(408) 871-0777


FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Page 5

Respondents also cited to Gov.C. 6254.18, but that section only allows for withholding

personal information held by a public agency. In this case, the information sought is not

personal information nor are the records held by a public agency because the statute gives a

very narrow definition of these terms. Under 6254.18(b)(2), these terms have only the following

meaning[]:

(2) Personal information means the following information related to an individualthat is maintained by a public agency: social security number, physical description,home address, home telephone number, statements of personal worth or personalfinancial data filed pursuant to subdivision (n) of Section 6254, personal medicalhistory, employment history, electronic mail address, and information that reveals anyelectronic network location or identity.

(3) Public agency means all of the following:(A) The State Department of Health Care Services.(B) The Department of Consumer Affairs.(C) The Department of Managed Health Care.(D) The State Department of Public Health.

Because a persons name is not among the information protected by 6254.18(b)(2), and also

because the respondents are not amongst the very small list of agencies protected by

6254.18(b)(3), this code section has no bearing on the request.

Respondents citation to Gov.C. 6254(c) is similarly misplaced. That code section only

applies to invasion of personal privacy such as Personnel, medical, or similar files, and a

persons mere name hardly qualifies.

Respondents also cite to Gov.C. 6254(k), but that section does not apply because

disclosing a persons name is not exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law,

including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.

Respondents final citation is to Gov.C. 6255(a), on the supposed grounds that the public

interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by

disclosure of the record. Respondents have cited to no public interest which is served by

withholding the names sought, and in no case can respondents carry their burden of showing that

the supposed interests clearly outweigh the publics right.


23/24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27



(408) 871-0777


FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Page 6

CONCLUSION

This court is asked to order respondents to comply with the law and make the records

available to petitioner.

Dated: April 13, 2012

MICHAEL MILLEN,ESQ.ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER


24/24

Michael Millen, Esq. (#151731)119 Calle Marguerita #100Los Gatos, CA 95032

(408) 871-0777 (408) 866-7480Plaintiff

Alameda1225 Fallon Street

Oakland, California 94612

Life Legal v. Regents of University of California

X

X

X

X 1X

Michael Millen, Esq.4/13/2012

[BY FAX]