Government
Jun. 21, 2002
Board Can't Seal Leaked Documents, Judge Says
LOS ANGELES - The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors cannot seal once privileged, but now public, documents to defend itself against a Los Angeles Times lawsuit that accuses the supervisors of repeatedly violating the state's open meetings laws, a judge ruled Wednesday.
The ruling by writs Judge Dzintra Janavs also applies to previously nonpublic documents that deal with a Dec. 18, 2001, closed session the county supervisors talked about publicly and in media interviews.
"I cannot find any compelling interest to file under seal any information that has been widely, widely disseminated," Janavs said. "Not only the [closed session] minutes but most of the exhibits that are sought to be sealed have been made public since March and have been available to the public through various media."
She did, however, seal portions of declarations by county Chief Executive Officer David Janssen and County Counsel Lloyd Pellman pertaining to two January board meetings that the board closed to the public.
The Los Angeles Times sued the board over its allegedly routine violations of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Los Angeles Times v. Board of Supervisors, BS075075, (L.A. Super. Ct., filed March 29, 2002).
District Attorney Steve Cooley declined to prosecute the board over the Dec. 18 meeting flap, or for a series of telephone calls between supervisors and Pellman, which the Times contends violates the Ralph M. Brown Act prohibitions against serial meetings.
Although the board adopted reforms in April to address many of the newspapers' concerns, the Times wants a court to monitor county compliance with the statutes.
The county's outside counsel, Thomas Winfield of Brown Winfield & Canzoneri, argued Wednesday that the board did not waive its right to keep the privileged documents secret when a county employee accidentally gave them to a Times reporter.
The court's order to make leaked documents public could have a chilling effect on government's cooperation with the media, Winfield said outside court.
"It would create this kind of condition ... where government officials are hesitant to deal as openly as they might for fear that trying to cooperate with the press they are waiving their privilege," Winfield said.
Times attorney Alonzo Wickers of Davis Wright Tremaine scoffed at the county's argument.
"These documents were released in February and were made public in March. They took no action to obtain return of those documents until very, very recently," Wickers said. "You don't simply sit on your hands for months and then say, 'Oh, we didn't waive our privilege.'"
Janavs gave Winfield until Tuesday to withdraw the documents he sought to have sealed.
The judge also revealed Wednesday that local rules could prevent her from issuing the long-term relief requested by the Times. She asked the attorneys to brief her about whether to transfer the case to a trial court.
Neither side opposed the possible transfer.
"We are willing to do whatever we need to get a ruling from the court that the board violated the Brown Act," Wickers said. "Whichever courtroom that order comes from will be fine."
"I think this case should be over on Tuesday," Winfield said. "They didn't state a cause for relief."
Janavs set a hearing for Tuesday on whether to transfer the case to a trial court.
Gina Keating
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com