County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition

Last updated
County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition
Seal of California.svg
Court California Court of Appeal, Sixth District
Full case nameCounty of Santa Clara, et al. v. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California First Amendment Coalition
Citation(s) 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301
89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 374
Case history
Appealed from Santa Clara County Superior Court
Court membership
Judges sitting Richard J. McAdams, Franklin D. Elia, Nathan D. Mihara
Case opinions
Decision byMcAdams
Laws applied
California Public Records Act

County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, 170 Cal. App. 4th 1301 (2009), was a case before the California Courts of Appeal dealing with the ability of a local California agency to limit the disclosure of, or require license agreements for, public records and data requested under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

Contents

The court found that as public records, there was "no statutory basis either for copyrighting the GIS basemap or for conditioning its release on a licensing agreement" under United States copyright law because state freedom of information laws preclude a state agency’s reliance on federal copyright unless state law specifically permits it. [1]

History

The case dealt with a public records request by the California First Amendment Coalition for GIS "basemap" data held by Santa Clara County, California. The trial court concluded that the county must release the records and could not place any restrictions on their use. The county then appealed to the California Courts of Appeal, which upheld the lower court's decision, and published its opinion. The county also unsuccessfully attempted to have the opinion depublished by the Supreme Court of California.

The county made three arguments. The county claimed the records were "protected critical infrastructure information" and exempted from release by the federal Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, that disclosure was exempted under the CPRA under the "catch all" exemption, and that it had a federal copyright in the basemap, arguing that copyright protection authorized the county to condition release of records, under freedom of information laws like the CPRA, with restrictions on the requester’s use of the records or sharing of the records with others.

Decision

The court rejected each of the county's arguments:

See also

Related Research Articles

Freedom of information in the United States results from freedom of information legislation at the federal level and in the fifty states.

2004 California Proposition 59 Amendment of the Constitution of California

Proposition 59 was an amendment of the Constitution of California that introduced freedom of information or "sunshine" provisions. It was proposed by the California Legislature and overwhelmingly approved by the voters in an initiative held as part of the November 2004 elections.

<i>Apple v. Does</i> California Courts of Appeal case

Apple v. Does was a high-profile legal proceeding in United States of America notable for bringing into question the breadth of the shield law protecting journalists from being forced to reveal their sources, and whether that law applied to online news journalists writing about corporate trade secrets. The case was also notable for the large collection of amici curiae who joined in the matter.

Public records are documents or pieces of information that are not considered confidential and generally pertain to the conduct of government.

1996 California Proposition 218 Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Called the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in 1978. Proposition 218 was approved by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

The First Amendment Coalition (FAC) is a nonprofit public interest organization committed to freedom of speech, more open and accountable government, and public participation in civic affairs. Founded in 1988, FAC's activities include "test case" litigation, free legal consultations on First Amendment issues, educational programs, legislative oversight of bills in California affecting access to government and free speech, and public advocacy. In 2016, lawyer and journalist David Snyder became the organization's executive director.

A Pitchess motion is a request made by the defense in a California criminal case, such as a DUI case or a resisting arrest case, to access a law enforcement officer's personnel information when the defendant alleges in an affidavit that the officer used excessive force or lied about the events surrounding the defendant's arrest. The information provided will include prior incidents of use of force, allegations of excessive force, citizen complaints, and information gathered during the officer's pre-employment background investigation. The motion's name comes from the case Pitchess v. Superior Court.

Under Florida's Constitution and its statutes, the state and its agents are not permitted to claim copyright on its public records unless the legislature specifically permits it. This includes a work made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any state, regional, county, district, municipal, or other unit of government and their associated committees and divisions created or established by the laws of the Government of Florida. Text, communications, and images produced by the government of Florida and any county, region, district, authority, agency, or municipal officer, department, division, board, committee, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government created or established by law are consequently in the public domain according to court interpretation in Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner.

A Doe subpoena is a subpoena that seeks the identity of an unknown defendant to a lawsuit. Most jurisdictions permit a plaintiff who does not yet know a defendant's identity to file suit against John Doe and then use the tools of the discovery process to seek the defendant's true name. A Doe subpoena is often served on an online service provider or ISP for the purpose of identifying the author of an anonymous post.

California Public Records Act Freedom-of-information law in California, US

The California Public Records Act was a law passed by the California State Legislature and signed by then-governor Ronald Reagan in 1968 requiring inspection or disclosure of governmental records to the public upon request, unless exempted by law.

Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner, 889 So.2d 871, was a case before the Florida Second District Court of Appeal concerning whether Abe Skinner, the Collier County, Florida Property Appraiser could require prospective commercial users of the official GIS records created in his office to first enter into a licensing agreement. The court concluded that he may not. While no one disputed the GIS maps were public record, Skinner argued they were protected by federal copyright law. In the decision, the court held that "Skinner has no authority to assert copyright protection in the GIS maps, which are public records." In support of this, the Court held that the "Florida public records law ... overrides a governmental agency's ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption." Additionally, the Court confirmed "Florida's Constitution and its statutes do not permit public records to be copyrighted unless the legislature specifically states they can be."

Rancho Sespe was a 8,881-acre (35.94 km2) Mexican land grant in present-day Ventura County, California given in 1833 by Governor José Figueroa to Carlos Antonio Carrillo. The grant encompassed the Santa Clara River Valley between Piru Creek on the east and Santa Paula Creek on the west, and was bounded to the north and south by the mountains, and included present day Fillmore.

<i>DVD Copy Control Assn, Inc. v. Bunner</i>

DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Bunner was a lawsuit that was filed by the DVD Copy Control Association in California, accusing Andrew Bunner and several others of misappropriation of trade secrets under California's implementation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The case went through several rounds of appeals and was last heard and decided in February 2004 by the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District.

<i>DVD Copy Control Assn, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.</i>

DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc., 176 Cal. App. 4th 697 is a legal case heard by the California Court of Appeal concerning breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. It discusses incorporation by reference regarding a supplemental document that was not part of the written license agreement between the parties. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that defendant was bound to the entire contract, including the supplemental document.

The California Shield Law provides statutory and constitutional protections to journalists seeking to maintain the confidentiality of an unnamed source or unpublished information obtained during newsgathering. The shield law is currently codified in Article I, section 2(b) of the California Constitution and section 1070 of the Evidence Code. Section 1986.1 of the California Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) supplements these principal shield law provisions by providing additional safeguards to a reporter whose records are being subpoenaed.

Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 262, is a California Supreme Court case in which the court declined to find personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who had no personal contacts with California. The Court found that the posting of a misappropriated trade secret on a Web site which could result in harm to California residents was not sufficient to show he had purposely availed himself of the forum state by expressly aiming his conduct at residents of California.

The copyright status of works produced by the governments of states, territories, and municipalities in the United States varies. Copyright law is federal in the United States. Federal law expressly denies U.S. copyright protection to two types of government works: works of the U.S. federal government itself, and all edicts of any government regardless of level or whether or not foreign. Other than addressing these "edicts of government", U.S. federal law does not address copyrights of U.S. state and local government.

1996 California Proposition 218 (Local Initiative Power) Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment in the state of California that appeared on the November 5, 1996, statewide election ballot. Proposition 218 revolutionized local and regional government finance in California. Called the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” Proposition 218 was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark Proposition 13 property tax revolt initiative constitutional amendment approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. Proposition 218 was drafted by constitutional attorneys Jonathan Coupal and Jack Cohen.

The Public Records Act (PRA) is a law of the U.S. state of Washington requiring public access to all records and materials from state and local agencies. It was originally passed as a ballot initiative by voters in 1972 and revised several times by the state legislature. The definition of public records, especially concerning the state legislature, was subject to several legal challenges in the decades since the law was passed.

Writ of mandate (California) Type of extraordinary writ in California

The writ of mandate is a type of extraordinary writ in the U.S. state of California. In California, certain writs are used by the superior courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court to command lower bodies, including both courts and administrative agencies, to do or not to do certain things. A writ of mandate may be granted by a court as an order to an inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person, both public and private. Unlike the federal court system, where interlocutory appeals may be taken on a permissive basis and mandamus are usually used to contest recusal decisions, the writ of mandate in California is not restricted to purely ministerial tasks, but can be used to correct any legal error by the trial court. Nonetheless, ordinary writ relief in the Court of Appeal is rarely granted.

References

  1. 1 2 County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition, 170Cal. App. 4th1301 , 1337(2009).
  2. 1 2 County of Santa Clara, 170 Cal. App. 4th at 1335.