eDiscovery Daily Blog

• February 13, 2015

In Bertoli et al. v. City of Sebastopol, et al., No.A132916 (Ct. App. Ca. Jan. 20, 2015), the California Court of Appeals, while not disagreeing with the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff’s ESI request was “unfocused and nonspecific, unduly burdensome, and an alarming invasion of privacy rights”, disagreed that their Public Records Act (PRA) requests were “clearly frivolous” and reversed the trial court’s order for attorneys fees and costs.

Case Summary

The plaintiff, after being hit by a car while walking in a crosswalk, was rendered permanently physically and mentally disabled. Her attorney served PRA requests seeking electronically stored information (ESI) on the defendant in anticipation of her personal injury lawsuit. There was an initial request for collision reports, about which the defendant maintained it provided several records and offered for the plaintiff’s attorney to indicate which additional collision reports he wanted.

When the plaintiff served an additional 62 ESI requests, including requests to search private computers that the plaintiff believed could contain responsive documents, the defendant objected to the 62 separate requests as “overly extensive, overly broad and, in some cases, unlimited in time.” The defendant made suggestions to narrow the requests, and the plaintiff offered to pay for a third-party eDiscovery vendor to assist with the searches, but the disputes continued. Once the personal injury lawsuit was filed, the defendant set a deadline for the plaintiff’s attorney to complete his review. Ultimately, the parties could not reach an agreement on the ESI requests and the plaintiff filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate under the Public Records Act for relief.

In June 2011, the trial court – having “carefully weighed the competing interests at stake” – denied the petition. In its order, it noted that the defendant had shown a “remarkable degree of openness and cooperation” in its response to the plaintiff’s PRA requests and characterized the relief sought in the Petition as an “unprecedented fishing expedition” which would “constitute an alarming invasion of property rights, an extravagant use of limited city resources, and an unwanted green light for immoderate discovery.” Pursuant to the Public Records Act, the trial court deemed the petition “clearly frivolous” and ordered for the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s requested attorneys’ fees, which had risen from the initial request of $42,280 to $82,380. The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s finding of clear frivolousness in August 2011 and appealed the amount of fees awarded in March 2012.

The appellate court’s analysis agreed with the trial court’s finding that the plaintiff’s requests constituted an undue burden, but stated that “the mere fact that the Petition was impermissibly overbroad and therefore properly rejected by the trial court does not necessarily mean that it was entirely without merit. Rather, as stated above, it is an open issue whether and to what extent public records may be obtained from private computers under the PRA. Further, there was evidence that several current employees had responsive documents that were not disclosed and that certain city council members, at least, used their home computers for City-related business. Thus, despite the overbreadth of the Petition, it was not, on that basis, clearly frivolous.” As a result, the appellate court reversed the order for attorneys fees and costs.

So, what do you think? Should the unduly burdensome requests be enough to justify reimbursement of attorneys fees or was the appellate court decision correct? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscoveryDaily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscoveryDaily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.