Jay Hotchner vs. Carpinteria Unified School District

Case Number

23CV03230

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 11/29/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1) Verified Petition For Writ Of Mandate; 2) Application To Seal Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Petitioner’s Motion For Writ Of Mandate

Tentative Ruling

For Petitioner Jay Hotchner: Dana S. Martinez, Michael E. Plank, Estephanie Villalpando, Bush Gottlieb

For Respondent Carpinteria Unified School District: Lynn Beekman, Dhara Patel, Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, LLP

RULING

(1) For all reasons discussed herein, the verified petition for writ of mandate of Petitioner Jay Hotchner is denied.

(2) For all reasons discussed herein, the application to seal the memorandum in support of Petitioner Jay Hotchner’s writ of mandate is denied. Petitioner’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of Petitioner’s writ of mandate, lodged conditionally under seal on October 13, 2023, shall be filed in the public record.

(3) For all reasons discussed herein, Volumes II, III, IV, and V of Exhibit A to the supplemental declaration of Michael Plank, provisionally filed under seal on August 21, 2023, and Volume I of Exhibit A to the supplemental declaration of Michael Plank, provisionally filed under seal on August 23, 2023, shall be unsealed and filed in the public record.

(4) For all reasons discussed herein, the notice of lodging of Respondent Carpinteria Unified School District’s memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to Petitioner’s motion for writ of mandate, provisionally filed under seal on November 8, 2023, shall be unsealed and filed in the public record.

(5) The effectiveness of this order, and the unsealing and filing in the public record of the documents described herein, shall be stayed until the later of the expiration of the time for filing a notice of appeal or the conclusion of any appellate proceedings.

Background

Petitioner Jay Hotchner (Hotchner) filed his verified petition for writ of mandate (the petition) on July 26, 2023, seeking to prevent Respondent the Carpinteria Unified School District (the District) from disclosing, producing, or publishing documents in response to a request for records under Government Code section 7920.000 et seq. (the California Public Records Act or CPRA). As alleged in the petition:

Hotchner has been employed by the District as a classroom teacher. Hotchner is also the President of the Carpinteria Association of United School Employees (CAUSE), which is the exclusive bargaining representative for classroom teachers employed by the District.

The District suspended Hotchner from his teaching position and is pursuing termination as a result of certain allegations against Hotchner which Hotchner has challenged. The parties are presently engaged in the legal process set out in the Education Code for resolution of Hotchner’s challenge of the allegations. A hearing before a Commission On Professional Competence is ongoing, with 10 days of hearing having been completed. The hearing is set to resume on August 21, 2023.

The District has not proven the veracity or merit of any of the allegations against Hotchner. On November 16, 2021, in a case titled Carpinteria Association of United School Employees, Local 2216 v. Carpinteria Unified School District, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determined that the District had unlawfully retaliated against Hotchner with respect to disciplinary action it took against Hotchner in 2019, and ordered that the discipline be rescinded (the PERB decision).

On June 12, 2023, the District sent a letter to Hotchner informing him that the District had received a request under the CPRA seeking “[r]ecords that pertain to the termination of [Hotchner] from his teaching position at Carpinteria Middle School” (the CPRA request). The District stated that it would produce the requested records in response to the CPRA request or about August 4, 2023, unless Hotchner initiated legal action to prevent the disclosure of the records.

On July 17 and 19, 2023, Hotchner’s counsel requested that the District provide a copy of the CPRA request, the identity of the party that made the CPRA request, and copies of all records that the District intended to produce. On July 20, 2023, the District provided 658 pages of records, some of which include redactions, that the District intended to produce in response to the CPRA request.

In the petition, Hotchner asserts that the records at issue constitute personnel records relating to allegations which are not substantial or well-founded and are therefore exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. Hotchner also claims a right to privacy with respect to the information contained in the records that Hotchner asserts would be improperly violated and invaded should the records be produced by the District in response to the CPRA request. Hotchner further asserts that the District abused its discretion by failing to properly interpret and comply with the CPRA and the California Constitution, and by not refusing to disclose the records.

On July 28, 2023, Hotchner filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause regarding a preliminary injunction to restrain the District from producing the records for the purpose of maintaining the status quo pending the Court’s determination of the petition.

On July 31, 2023, finding that a temporary restraining order was necessary for a brief period until the Court could hold a hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction, and that a preliminary injunction was appropriate during the pendency of this action with regard to the propriety of the disclosure of the records as well as the issuance of a permanent injunction and writ of mandate, the Court granted Hotchner’s ex parte application and set an order to show cause on August 23, 2023.

On August 10, 2023, the District filed its opposition to Hotchner’s request for a preliminary injunction.

On August 16, 2023, Hotchner filed a reply to the District’s opposition to the request for a preliminary injunction, together with a supplemental declaration of his counsel, Michael Plank (the supplemental Plank declaration). In support of the reply, Hotchner conditionally lodged under seal a copy of the records which were submitted as volumes I through V of Exhibit A (collectively, Exhibit A) to the supplemental Plank declaration. Hotchner concurrently filed an application to seal the entirety of Exhibit A.

On August 23, 2023, the Court issued a preliminary injunction pending further Court order, finding that the status quo should be maintained until a ruling on the petition was made. (Aug. 23, 2023, Minute Order.) Further, the Court granted the application to seal Exhibit A and ordered Exhibit A sealed pending further order of the Court. (Ibid.; see also Aug. 28, 2023, Order To Seal Exhibit A.)

Also on August 23, 2023, the District filed its answer to the petition, denying certain allegations and admitting others, and asserting eighteen affirmative defenses.

On October 13, 2023, Hotchner publicly filed a memorandum in support of the petition which contains redactions (the moving brief). On the same date, Hotchner lodged the moving brief conditionally under seal. Hotchner concurrently filed an application to seal the moving brief.

On November 3, 2023, the District filed an application to seal its opposition to the moving brief based on Hotchner’s application to seal portions of the moving brief. In support of its opposition, the District publicly filed the declarations of Jacqueline M. Litra (Litra) and Diana Zapata (Zapata).

On November 6, 2023, the District publicly filed a redacted version if its opposition to the moving brief filed by Hotchner (the opposition), together with a lodgment of exhibits in in support of its opposition. Portions of the exhibits publicly filed by the District are redacted.

On November 8, 2023, the Court issued an order granting the District’s application to seal the opposition. The opposition was filed under seal on November 8, 2023.

On November 9, 2023, Hotchner filed a reply brief responding to the District’s opposition.

Analysis

Under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1086, a “beneficially interested” party may, upon verified petition, seek a writ of mandate “to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station….” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1085, subd. (a); 1086; see also CV Amalgamated LLC v. City of Chula Vista (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 265, 278 (Amalgamated) [“[m]andamus will lie to compel a public official to perform an official act required by law”].)

Though mandamus “will not lie to control an exercise of discretion, i.e., to compel an official to exercise discretion in a particular manner[,] [m]andamus may issue … to compel an official both to exercise his discretion (if he is required by law to do so) and to exercise it under a proper interpretation of the applicable law.” (Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 442.) The Petitioner must show “ ‘ “(1) [a] clear, present and usually ministerial duty on the part of the Respondent ...; and (2) a clear, present and beneficial right in the Petitioner to the performance of that duty.” ’ [Citation.]” (Amalgamated, supra, 82 Cal.App.5th at p. 278.) “Thus, mandamus should be available to prevent a public agency from acting in an unlawful manner by releasing information the disclosure of which is prohibited by law.” (Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1266-1267 (Marken). )

The parties here do not dispute that the records at issue consist of two documents that the District intends to produce in response to the CPRA request. A copy of the first and earliest dated document appears in Exhibit A beginning at page 28 of volume IV and ending at page 144 of volume V (Sealed Document 1). (Moving Brief at p. 1, . l. 20 – p. 2, l. 1; Opp. at p. 5, ll. 7-8.) A copy of the second and later dated document appears in Exhibit A beginning at page 4 of volume I and ending at page 27 of volume IV of Exhibit A (Sealed Document 2). (Moving Brief at p. 1, ll. 19-20; Opp. at p. 5, ll. 8-9.) (Note: Sealed Document 1 and Sealed Document 2 will be referred to collectively as the “Sealed Documents”.)

In his petition and moving brief, Hotchner asserts that the Sealed Documents relate to allegations of misconduct which resulted in the District suspending Hotchner from his teaching position and pursuing Hotchner’s termination from that position. (Petition, ¶¶ 5, 6; Moving Brief at p. 2, l. 21 - p. 3, l. 1, p. 2, fn. 4, p. 3, l. 15, p. 4, ll. 21-23.) Hotchner contends that the District must be permanently enjoined from disclosing the Sealed Documents because the allegations of misconduct contained therein are not substantial or well-founded. Therefore, Hotchner argues, publication of the Sealed Documents by the District would violate Hotchner’s privacy rights.

The District contends that the CPRA mandates disclosure of the Sealed Documents because the District’s investigation revealed well founded allegations of misconduct of a substantial nature which resulted in disciplinary action that was approved by its governing board.

In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature found and declared 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. Code, § 7921.000.) (Note: Statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated.) Accordingly, under the CPRA, and subject to limitation, “every person has a right to inspect any public record, exempted as otherwise provided.” (Gov. Code, § 7922.525, subd. (a).) “Except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person ….” (Gov. Code, § 7922.530, subd. (a).)

In enacting the CPRA, the Legislature was also “mindful of the right of individuals to privacy….” (Gov. Code, § 7921.000.) Therefore, the CPRA includes exemptions to its disclosure requirements designed to protect an individual’s right to privacy and which must be “narrowly construed if it limits the [people’s] right of access.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(2); Marken, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1261-1262.) Subject to exceptions not at issue here, the exemptions from disclosure requirements under the CPRA are “permissive, not mandatory: [t]hey allow nondisclosure but do not prohibit disclosure.” (Id. at p. 1262.)

In interpreting the CPRA and its exemptions from disclosure, the Court “seek[s] to balance the public right to access to information, the government’s need, or lack of need, to preserve confidentiality, and the individual’s right to privacy.” (American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian (1982) 32 Cal.3d 440, 447.)

Relevant here, section 7927.700 exempts from the CPRA’s general policy of disclosure an employee’s “personnel … files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (Gov. Code, § 7927.700.) In addition, under section 7922.000, a public record may be withheld if “on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” (Gov. Code, § 7922.000.)

To determine whether the exemptions from disclosure under sections 7927.7000 or 7922.000 apply, the Court conducts a three-step analysis. (Associated Chino Teachers v. Chino Valley Unified School Dist. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 530, 539 (Associated Chino); see also BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 755 [“[t]he tests under the two statutes … are essentially the same”].) The three-step analysis requires the Court to determine: (1) whether the records constitute a personnel or other similar file; (2) whether disclosure of the records would “ ‘compromise substantial privacy interests’ ”; and (3) whether “the potential harm to privacy interests from disclosure outweighs the public interest in disclosure.” (Versaci v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 805, 818 (Versaci); accord, Associated Chino, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 539.) When weighing the competing interests in privacy and public disclosure, the Court must determine “ ‘the extent to which disclosure of the requested item of information will shed light on the public agency’s performance of its duty.’ [Citation.]” (Versaci, supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 820.)

With respect to matters involving complaints or accusations of wrongdoing against an employee of a local agency such as the accusations at issue here, “a proper reconciliation of the [CPRA] and the constitutional right of privacy mandates that ... the recorded complaint be of a substantial nature before public access is permitted…. [W]here there is reasonable cause to believe the complaint to be well founded, the right of public access to related public records exists. Courts should not be bound by a contrary determination of the public agency, for if that were so the [CPRA’s] decree that ‘access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state’ would be largely frustrated.” (American Federation of State etc. Employees v. Regents of University of California (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 913, 918.)

In addition, neither a “finding of the truth of the complaint contained in the personnel records or the imposition of employee discipline is a prerequisite to disclosure. [¶] In evaluating whether a complaint against an employee is well-founded within the context of [the CPRA], both trial and appellate Courts, working with little or nothing more than written records, are ill-equipped to determine the veracity of the complaint. The Courts instead, both originally and upon review, are required to examine the documents presented to determine whether they reveal sufficient indicia of reliability to support a reasonable conclusion that the complaint was well founded. The Courts must consider such indicia of reliability in performing their ultimate task of balancing the competing concerns of a public employee’s right to privacy and the public interest served by disclosure.” (Bakersfield City School Dist. v. Superior Court (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1041, 1046-1047.) As the proponent of nondisclosure of the Sealed Documents, Hotchner bears the burden of proof to show “a ‘clear overbalance’ on the side of confidentiality. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1045.)

There is no dispute that the District is a “local agency” as that term is defined in the CPRA. (See Gov. Code, § 7920.510, subd. (d).) There is also no dispute that the Sealed Documents constitute “public records” as that term is defined in the CPRA. (See Gov. Code, § 7920.530, subd. (a) [public records include “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics”]; see also City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 617 [discussing the four aspects of a public record under CPRA].)

Further, the parties do not dispute that the Sealed Documents are part of Hotchner’s personnel file with the District and therefore constitute personnel files which are subject to the exemption under section 7927.700. (See Moving Brief at p. 2, ll. 1-2 & p. 5, ll. 15-18; Opp. at p. 5, ll. 14-16; see also Associated Chino, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 539 [the scope of personnel records includes records relating to the employee’s performance and any grievances concerning the employee].)

The parties also do not effectively dispute that the Sealed Documents are of the type that impact Hotchner’s privacy interests due to the nature of the alleged misconduct. Furthermore, the Court finds that, based on the substance of the allegations revealed in the Sealed Documents, disclosure of the Sealed Documents would implicate or compromise Hotchner’s substantial privacy interests. (Associated Chino, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 541.)

Because the information contained within the Sealed Documents relates to accusations against a public employee and the manner in which the District handled and responded to the accusations, the Sealed Records pertain to the conduct of the people’s business and give rise to a  public interest in disclosure. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 222, 242.) Moreover, disclosure of the Sealed Documents would contribute to the public’s understanding of government activities and shed light on the District’s performance of its duties. (Id. at p. 241.) In addition, as Hotchner occupied “a position of trust and responsibility as a classroom teacher”, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether and how the District enforces policies relevant or relating to the accusations at issue. (Marken, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1275.) For these reasons, there exists a public interest in disclosure of the Sealed Documents.

The Sealed Documents include detailed and factually specific accusations of misconduct made by students of the District and the parents of students. (See, e.g., Exh. A, Vol. 1 at p. 0006, ¶ 1.a(1)(a)-(e); p. 0007 ¶ 2(a)-(c), (3)-(11); p. 0008, ¶¶ 12 & 13; p. 0009, ¶ 14; p. 0010, ¶¶ 15-18.) There also exists corroborating evidence of certain conduct described in the Sealed Documents. (See, e.g., Exh. A, Vol. I at pp. 0095, 0098, 0152, 0160, 0162.) These examples are not intended to be exhaustive.

There is no information to suggest that the District fabricated these detailed and factually specific accusations. Moreover, the allegations describe misconduct of the type addressed in Associated Chino, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 535 [describing the type of allegations that would constitute “egregious misconduct”].) Even if some of the allegations do not describe “egregious” misconduct of the type described in Associated Chino, and as further discussed above, there exists a legitimate public interest in the manner in which the District enforces its policies as they relate to the alleged misconduct described and at issue in the Sealed Documents. (Marken, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1275.)

For all reasons discussed above and based on the Court’s examination of the Sealed Documents, the detailed and factually specific allegations of misconduct contained within the Sealed Documents and the existence of evidence that appears to corroborate the allegations of misconduct demonstrates that there exists sufficient indicia of reliability and a sufficient basis to support a reasonable conclusion that the accusations described in the Sealed Documents were well-founded, notwithstanding whether the accusations are or were found to be true.

In addition, information contained in the Sealed Documents demonstrates that the accusations were upheld by the District based on the District’s factual findings, and discipline was imposed against Hotchner which resulted in the District terminating Hotchner from his employment with the District. In light of the District’s conclusions and the imposition of discipline, release of the Sealed Documents is required under the CPRA. (Marken, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1276.)

Hotchner generally asserts that to the extent that a single document within the Sealed Documents may include multiple allegations, everything except for allegations that are both substantial and well-founded must be redacted or withheld. Wholly absent from the moving brief is any information to permit the Court to determine which specific documents Hotchner contends do not include allegations that are not substantial or well founded.

For all reasons discussed above, Hotchner has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that the potential harm to Hotchner’s privacy interests that would result from disclosure of the Sealed Documents outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure of the Sealed Documents. Therefore, the Court will deny the petition. As the Court will deny the petition, the Court will also deny Hotchner’s application to seal the moving brief for all reasons discussed herein.

In addition, for all reasons discussed herein, the Court will order Exhibit A and the District’s opposition to the moving brief unsealed and filed in the public record. The effectiveness of this order as it relates to documents lodged or filed under seal in this matter shall be stayed until the later of the expiration of the time for filing a notice of appeal or the conclusion of any appellate proceedings.