After the County of San Benito dragged its feet in responding to a natural resources group’s Public Records Act request about the controversial Strada Verde Project, the group sued for a writ of mandate to enforce their right to transparency. They did have that right, but the court in San Benito v. Superior Court (D6 Oct. 10, 2023) No. H050285 held they pushed it too far when they tried to get the exact same documents that were the subject of the lawsuit via pretrial discovery.
True, the court noted, an expeditious resolution of Public Records Act requests is a matter of significant public importance. “But we reject their premise that strategic resort to the Civil Discovery Act is a permissible shortcut to realizing [petitioner’s] prayer for relief.”
What about the county’s foot-dragging? “The trial court was entitled to be unimpressed by the County's continuing failure to specify a meaningful schedule for compliance.” But the remedy is not a motion to compel, but rather “to orderly adjudicate the merits of the County's claimed inability to comply more expeditiously.”
But the court emphasizes that its holding is narrow: litigants in Public Records Act enforcement actions can still get discovery undisputedly non-exempt documents.
You almost never see the Court of Appeal get interested in a discovery issue. But here, the entire lawsuit over a Public Records Act request was about discovery. So this was an unusual case where a discovery ruling effectively would have ended the case.