In Voice of San Diego v. Superior Court (County of San Diego), published July 16, 2021, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division 1 declined to issue a writ of mandate disturbing a trial court's decision on a California Public Records Act petition. The petitioner news media organizations made a CPRA request for records showing the locations of all businesses or other entities where COVID-19 community outbreaks have occurred from March 1, 2020 through July 15, 2020. The county responded by producing a spreadsheet of outbreaks redacting the names and addresses for the locations of outbreaks. The county provided an explanation that the public interest in protecting a candid exchange of information between those linked to the outbreak locations and the county Public Health Officer's disease investigators, to permit contact tracing. The explanation also stated that publicly releasing specific locations after the outbreak had taken place would not protect the public. The county asserted that the information was exempt from the public under the CPRA's catch-all provision, Government Code section 6255(a), which permits nondisclosure where the public interest served by not disclosing the record outweighs the public interest in disclosure. The county submitted the declaration of the county's public health officer in support. The trial court denied the writ petition seeking to enforce the CPRA request.
The appellate court agreed that the catch-all exemption applied. Although the court could reject the health officer's expert opinion if it were unduly speculative or lacked a proper basis. But her declaration was specific and based on her expertise and extensive experience. The petitioners did not submit any contrary evidence. That the county had released location information for outbreaks of other diseases, and COVID-19 information for a university, did not undermine the officer's opinion. The county provided valid explanations that when outbreaks of conditions such as hepatitis A or tuberculosis, the public could take specific action in response to protect themselves and avoid further spread. By contrast, the county established, when the public visits a location where a COVID-19 outbreak had occured, the public does not need to take any additional protective measures because community transmission of COVID-19 is widespread. The county showed that the public interest in promoting contact tracing by keeping information about locations confidential outweighs the public interest in knowing the locations of outbreaks to protect themselves, and determining the effectiveness of government efforts to combat COVID-19 by knowing specific locations of outbreaks.
Leave a Reply