September 16, 2013
As we noted here, the Court held no conference during the week of September 2 because it was conducting oral argument in San Francisco. On that basis, we concluded the Court would be taking no action on petitions for review. Or so we thought. But as one of our readers has helpfully pointed out, the court did in fact issue a grant-and-hold that week, apparently without holding a conference. The petition had been filed just the week before and prompt action was required because confidential information was at risk of being disclosed.
Accordingly, the following is our updated summary of the Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases during the week of September 2:
Federated University Police Officers Assn. v. Superior Court, S213024—Review Granted & Held—September 5, 2013
The Federated University Police Officers Association, a labor union representing University of California (UC) police officers, filed a petition for writ of mandate from a trial court order requiring the release of unredacted reports containing the names of UC police officers under the California Public Records Act. The Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four, agreed with the trial court and held in a published opinion, Federated University Police Officers Assn. v. Superior Court (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 18, that the identities of the officers named in the reports must be disclosed because this information does not fall within any category of exempted information under Penal Code section 832.7, subdivision (a).
The Supreme Court granted review, but ordered briefing deferred pending its decision in Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach, S200872, which presents the following issue: Are the names of police officers involved in on-duty shooting incidents subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act?
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)