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 28

BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION [FILE: 1779.00] Cory J. Briggs (State Bar no. 176284) Mekaela M. Gladden (State Bar no. 253673) Anthony N. Kim (State Bar no. 283353) 99 East C Street, Suite 111 Upland, CA 91786 Telephone: 909-949-7115 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner Kevin ONeill

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO--HALL OF JUSTICE

KEVIN ONEILL and DOES 1 through 10,

) ) Plaintiffs and Petitioners, ) ) vs. ) ) SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL ) DISTRICT and DOES 11 through 100, ) ) Defendants and Respondents. )

CASE NO. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AND CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

Plaintiff and Petitioner Kevin ONeill (Petitioner) alleges as follows in his Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandate under the California Public Records Act and California Constitution: Introductory Statement 1. Petitioner brings this action under the California Public Records Act (Act) and the

California Constitution. Petitioner submitted a written request to inspect and obtain copies of certain public records in the possession of Defendant and Respondent Sweetwater Union High School District (Respondent) and followed up with oral requests, but Respondent has failed to produce all of the responsive records. Parties 2. Petitioner is an individual and a taxpayer residing in San Diego County and within

Respondents geographic jurisdiction.

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 28

3. 4.

Respondent is a local agency under Section 6252(a) of the Act. The true names and capacities of the Defendants and Respondents identified as DOES

11 through 100 are unknown to Petitioner, who will seek the Courts permission to amend this pleading in order to allege the true names and capacities as soon as they are ascertained. Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants and Respondents 11 through 100 has jurisdiction by law over one or more aspects of the public records that are the subject of this proceeding or has some other cognizable interest in the public records. 5. Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that, at all times stated in

this pleading, each Defendant and Respondent was the agent, servant, or employee of each other Defendant and Respondent and was, in doing the things alleged in this pleading, acting within the scope of said agency, servitude, or employment and with the full knowledge or subsequent ratification of his principals, masters, and employers. Alternatively, in doing the things alleged in this pleading, each Defendant and Respondent was acting alone and solely to further his or her own interests. Background Information 6. On December 10, 2012, Respondent allocated $50,000 from its budget towards hiring

an investigative firm to follow-up on internal investigations on an as-needed basis, for the 2012-2013 school year. Ex. A. That investigative firm was ESI International, Inc. (ESI). Id. As it turns out, that $50,000 was ultimately insufficient to cover ESIs fees and Respondent, at its August 19, 2013 board meeting, subsequently allocated an additional $65,172 to pay invoices received from ESI for the 20122013 school year. Id. At that same August 19, 2013 board meeting, Respondent also allocated an additional $100,000 for ESIs services for the upcoming 2013-2014 school year. Ex. B. The First Public Records Act Request 7. On August 21, 2013, Petitioner submitted a Public Records Act Request (the First PRA

Request) asking for: all correspondence, including contracts, reports, and invoices between the Sweetwater Union High School District and the ESI International firm. As you may recall, this is the investigative agency referred to in . . . Mondays agenda.1 Ex. C. 8. On September 3, 2013, Respondents clerk provided Petitioner with Respondents

$50,000 contract with ESI for the 2012-2013 school year only. Furthermore, Respondents clerk stated

Mondays agenda refers to the August 19, 2013 board meeting referenced in 6, above.
AND

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE ETC .

Page 2

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 28

that the correspondence, reports and invoices are subject to attorney client and attorney work product privilege. Ex. D. Respondents clerk failed to provide any records relating to the $65,172 and $100,000, approved for ESIs services on August 19, 2013. Furthermore, Respondent asserted the attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges despite the fact that ESI is not a law firm, but a private investigative firm. The Second Public Records Act Request 9. On September 5, 2013, Petitioner submitted a letter to Respondent (the Second PRA

Request) clarifying its First PRA Request and asking, again, for: A. All correspondence, including contracts, reports, and invoices between the

Sweetwater Union High School District (District) and ESI and, B. 10. The name and title of the District employee who is claiming privilege. Ex. E.

Petitioners Second PRA Request provided legal authority and case law explaining the

purpose of the Act, along with guidelines regarding the types of documents that qualify as attorney-work product and attorney-client privileged. Id. 11. On September 25, 2013, Respondent answered Petitioners Second PRA Request by

requesting a 14-day extension, to October 10, 2013, to respond.2 Respondent also asked Petitioner to identify a specific time frame for his Second PRA Request. Petitioner then clarified his request by stating he was seeking public records from January 2013 through the present.3 Ex. F. 12. As with Petitioners First PRA Request, Respondent refused to provide any

correspondence, reports, and invoices relating to ESIs services, in response to Petitioners Second PRA Request. Jurisdiction and Venue 13. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Government Code Sections 6258

and 6259, and Code of Civil Procedure Sections 526a, 1060 et seq., and 1084 et seq., regardless of how any particular cause of action may be designated.

It should be noted that Respondents Second PRA Request was submitted on September 5, 2013, and not September 16, 2013, as alleged in Respondents response to Petitioners Second PRA Request, meaning Respondents September 25 response to the Second PRA Request was untimely. Compare Ex. E (Second PRA Request) to Ex. F (Response to Second PRA Request). The PRA requires public agencies to respond to PRA requests within ten days of the request.
3

The present, at that time, was October 11, 2013.

AND

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE ETC .

Page 3

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 28 for:

14.

Venue in this Court is proper because the obligations, liabilities, and violations of law

alleged in this pleading occurred in the City of Chula Vista, California. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of the California Public Records Act (Against All Defendants/Respondents) 15. 16. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are fully incorporated into this paragraph. On August 21, 2013, Petitioner submitted the First PRA Request asking for: all

correspondence, including contracts, reports, and invoices between the Sweetwater Union High School District and the ESI International firm. Ex. C. 17. On September 5, 2013, Petitioner submitted the Second PRA Requesting asking, again,

A. District and ESI and, B. 18.

All correspondence, including contracts, reports, and invoices between the

The name and title of the District employee who is claiming privilege. Ex. E.

In response to Petitioners requests, Respondent only provided the Districts $50,000

contract with ESI for the 2012-2013 school year, the total budget for human resources without any kind of itemized breakdown, and a total of ESI billings without any kind of breakdown. No correspondence, reports, or invoices between the District and ESI were provided to Petitioner. Additionally, Respondent failed to respond to the Second PRA Request within the period of time prescribed by law. 19. The correspondence, reports, and invoices exchanged between the District and ESI are

public records within the meaning of the Act. 20. Respondents failure to disclose all correspondence, reports, and invoices exchanged

between the District and ESI is a violation of the Act because public records exchanged between a public agency and a private investigative firm do not qualify as attorney-client privileged and/or attorney work-product under the Act. The failure to adequately identify the District employee claiming privilege also violates the Act. 21. Petitioner has been damaged as a result of the unlawful failure of Respondent to produce

the records responsive to Petitioners PRA requests.

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

AND

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE ETC .

Page 4

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 28 25. 26. 22. 23.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Declaratory Relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1060 et seq. (Against all Defendants/Respondents) Paragraphs 1 through 21 are fully incorporated into this paragraph. Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that an actual controversy

exists between Petitioner, on the one hand, and Respondent, on the other hand, concerning their respective rights and duties under the Act. As alleged in this pleading, Petitioner contends that the responsive public records are not exempt from disclosure under the Act, that Respondent is required by law to produce them, that Respondent did not respond to the Second PRA Request in a timely manner, and that Respondent failed to identify the District employee claiming privilege; whereas Petitioner is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Respondent disputes Petitioners contention. 24. Petitioner desires a judicial determination and declaration as to whether the responsive

public records were unlawfully withheld by Respondent. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: Writ of Mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1084 et seq. (Against All Defendants/Respondents) Paragraphs 1 through 24 are fully incorporated into this paragraph. The Act requires Respondent to permit Petitioner to inspect and obtain copies of all

public records that are not exempt from disclosure. 27. Respondent had and continues to have a mandatory, ministerial legal duty to permit

Petitioner to inspect and obtain copies of the responsive public records because they are not exempt from disclosure, to respondent to all requests for public records in a timely manner, and to provide other legally required information in connection with any such request. The persistence of Respondent in refusing to permit Petitioner to inspect and obtain copies of the responsive public records and to otherwise satisfy the Act violates the Act and denies Petitioner of public information to which he is entitled under the Act. PRAYER FOR ALL THESE REASONS, Petitioner respectfully prays for the following relief against all Defendants and Respondents (and any and all other parties who may oppose Petitioner in this proceeding) jointly and severally:

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

AND

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE ETC .

Page 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A.

On the First Cause of Action: 1. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief directing Respondent to fully comply

with the Act as it relates to the First PRA Request and Second PRA Request; and 2. An order determining and declaring that the refusal of Respondent to permit

Petitioner to inspect and obtain copies of the responsive public records does not comply with the Act. B. On the Second Cause of Action: 1. An order determining and declaring that the refusal of Respondent to permit

Petitioner to inspect and obtain copies of the responsive public records does not comply with the Act. C. On the Third Cause of Action: 1. A writ of mandate (i) ordering all Respondents to comply with the Act and (ii)

prohibiting each of them from refusing to permit Petitioner to inspect and obtain copies of withheld public records. D. On All Causes of Action: 1. An order providing for the Courts continuing jurisdiction over this proceeding

in order to ensure that Respondent complies with the Act and all other applicable laws; 2. All attorney fees and other legal expenses incurred by Petitioner in connection

with this proceeding; and 3. Any further relief that this Court may deem appropriate.

Date: March 7, 2013.

Respectfully submitted, BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION

By:

______________________________ Anthony N. Kim Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner Kevin ONeill

25 26 27 28

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

AND

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE ETC .

Page 6