1 2 3 BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION [FILE: 2004.00] Cory J. Briggs (State Bar no. 176284) Anthony N. Kim (State Bar no. 283353) 99 East “C” Street, Suite 111 Upland, CA 91786 Telephone: 909-949-7115 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner Art Castañares 5 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO – CENTRAL DIVISION 10 11 12 13 14 15 ART CASTAÑARES, ) ) Plaintiff and Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY OF SAN DIEGO; and DOES 1 through 100, ) ) Defendants and Respondents. ) CASE NO. ____________________________ VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AND OTHER LAWS 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff and Petitioner ART CASTAÑARES (“PLAINTIFF”) alleges as follows: 20 21 Introductory Statement 1. PLAINTIFF brings this lawsuit under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), as 22 well as the California Constitution, the common law, and other applicable legal authorities. 23 PLAINTIFF made a lawful CPRA request to Defendants/Respondents, but they have illegally failed to 24 disclose the responsive public records. 25 26 Parties 2. PLAINTIFF is a journalist and the publisher of La Prensa San Diego. In this capacity, 27 one of his primary roles as a government “watchdog” is ensuring that public agencies comply with all 28 applicable laws aimed at promoting transparency and accountability in government. 1 2 3 3. Defendant and Respondent CITY OF SAN DIEGO (“CITY”) is a “local agency” within the meaning of Government Code Section 6252. 4. The true names and capacities of the Defendants/Respondents identified as DOES 1 4 through 100 are unknown to PLAINTIFF, who will seek the Court’s permission to amend this pleading 5 in order to allege the true names and capacities as soon as they are ascertained. PLAINTIFF is informed 6 and believes and on that basis alleges that each of the fictitiously named Defendants/Respondents 1 7 through 100 has jurisdiction by law over one or more aspects of the public records that are the subject 8 of this lawsuit or has some other cognizable interest in the public records. 9 5. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that, at all times stated 10 in this pleading, each Defendant/Respondent was the agent, servant, or employee of every other 11 Defendant/Respondent and was, in doing the things alleged in this pleading, acting within the scope of 12 said agency, servitude, or employment and with the full knowledge or subsequent ratification of 13 his/her/its principals, masters, and employers. Alternatively, in doing the things alleged in this pleading, 14 each Defendant/Respondent was acting alone and solely to further his/her/its own interests. 15 16 Jurisdiction and Venue 6. The Court has jurisdiction over this lawsuit pursuant to Government Code Sections 6258 17 and 6259; Code of Civil Procedure Sections 526a, 1060 et seq., and 1084 et seq.; the California 18 Constitution, and the common law, among other provisions of law. 19 20 7. Venue in this Court is proper because the obligations, liabilities, and violations of law alleged in this pleading occurred in the County of San Diego in the State of California. 21 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: Violation of Open-Government Laws (Against All Defendants/Respondents) 22 23 8. The preceding allegations in this pleading are fully incorporated into this paragraph. 24 9. On or about May 15, 2019, PLAINTIFF caused to be submitted to CITY a request for 25 certain public records pertaining to the San Diego Police Department’s use of the Automated Regional 26 Justice Information System (“Request”). A true and correct copy of the Request is attached to this 27 pleading as Exhibit “A.” 28 10. CITY never responded to the Request. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 2 1 2 11. On May 30, 2019, PLAINTIFF made an inquiry to follow up on the Request. A true and correct copy of the follow-up inquiry is attached to this pleading as Exhibit “B.” 3 12. CITY never responded to PLAINTIFF’s follow-up inquiry. 4 13. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges as follows: 5 A. CITY did not do a thorough search for all public records responsive to 6 PLAINTIFF’s request, including but not limited to failing to search for responsive public records 7 maintained on the personal accounts and/or devices of public officials. By way of example and not 8 limitation, CITY has never provided PLAINTIFF with any affidavit or other evidence like that 9 described in Smith v. City of San Jose, 2 Cal.5th 608 (2017), to satisfactorily establish that each CITY- 10 affiliated agent using a personal account and/or device has thoroughly searched for and produced all 11 responsive public records in and/or on the agent’s personal account and/or device. 12 B. CITY has not produced all public records responsive to PLAINTIFF’s request. 13 C. To the extent any of the responsive public records is exempt from disclosure, 14 CITY did nothing to assist PLAINTIFF in submitting a focused and effective request that would enable 15 it to obtain those responsive records that are not exempt from disclosure. 16 17 18 D. There is at least one public record in Defendants’/Respondents’ possession, custody, and/or control that is responsive to the Request and that has not been disclosed to PLAINTIFF. 14. PLAINTIFF and other members of the public have been harmed as a result of 19 Defendants’/Respondents’ failure to produce the public record responsive to PLAINTIFF’s request. 20 By way of example and not limitation, the legal rights of PLAINTIFF to access information concerning 21 the conduct of the people’s business is being violated and continues to be violated. 22 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: Declaratory Relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1060 et seq. (Against All Defendants/Respondents) 23 24 15. The preceding allegations in this pleading are fully incorporated into this paragraph. 25 16. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that an actual controversy 26 exists between PLAINTIFF, on the one hand, and Defendants/Respondents, on the other hand, 27 concerning their respective rights and duties under the CPRA, the California Constitution, the common 28 law, and other applicable legal authorities. As alleged in this pleading, PLAINTIFF contends that at COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 3 1 least one public record responsive to PLAINTIFF’s request exists but was not disclosed and that 2 Defendants/Respondents are required by law to disclose each and every responsive record; whereas 3 Defendants/Respondents dispute PLAINTIFF’s contention. 4 17. PLAINTIFF desires a judicial determination and declaration as to whether disclosable 5 public records were unlawfully withheld by Defendants/Respondents and whether they were required 6 by law to produce such records in a timely manner. 7 Prayer 8 FOR ALL THESE REASONS, PLAINTIFF respectfully prays for the following relief against 9 all Defendants/Respondents (and any and all other parties who may oppose PLAINTIFF in this lawsuit) 10 11 jointly and severally: A. 12 On the First Cause of Action: 1. A judgment determining or declaring that Defendants/Respondents have not 13 promptly and fully complied with the CPRA, the California Constitution, the common law, and/or other 14 applicable laws with regard to PLAINTIFF’s request; 15 2. A writ of mandate ordering Defendants/Respondents to promptly and fully 16 comply with the CPRA, the California Constitution, the common law, and all other applicable laws with 17 regard to PLAINTIFF’s request; and 18 3. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief directing Defendants/Respondents 19 to fully respond to PLAINTIFF’s request and to permit PLAINTIFF to inspect and obtain copies of all 20 responsive public records. 21 22 B. On the Second Cause of Action: 1. An order determining and declaring that the failure of Defendants/Respondents 23 to disclose all public records responsive to PLAINTIFF’s request and to permit PLAINTIFF to inspect 24 and obtain copies of the responsive public records does not comply with the CPRA, the California 25 Constitution, the common law, and/or other applicable laws; and 26 2. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief directing Defendants/Respondents 27 to respond to and disclose all public records responsive to PLAINTIFF’s request and to permit 28 PLAINTIFF to inspect and obtain copies of the responsive public records. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 4 1 2 C. On All Causes of Action: 1. An order providing for the Court’s continuing jurisdiction over this lawsuit in 3 order to ensure that Defendants/Respondents fully comply with the CPRA, the California Constitution, 4 the common law, and/or other applicable laws; 5 6 7 8 2. All attorney fees and other legal expenses incurred by PLAINTIFF in connection with this lawsuit; and 3. Any further relief that this Court may deem appropriate. Date: June 5, 2019. Respectfully submitted, 9 BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION 10 11 By: ______________________________ Cory J. Briggs 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Petitioner San Diegans for Open Government 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ETC. Page 5 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AND OTHER LAWS Exhibit “A” From: Art Castañares   Date: May 15, 2019 at 5:22:00 PM PDT  To: dnisleit@pd.sandiego.gov, munozm@sandiego.gov  Subject: Public Records Act request  Chief David Nisleit  San Diego Police Department  1401 Broadway  San Diego, CA 92101      RE: Public Records Act Request  Chief Nisleit:  Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I  ask to obtain a copy of the following, which I understand to be held by your agency:  Any and all documents related to any contract, agreement, lease, or other materials related to the use  of Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) by SDPD, whether held and/or created on  public or private computers, devices, or other media;  Any and all documents related to the SDPD request at City Council to continue its membership in ARGIS,  approved by the Council on May 14, 2019, whether held and/or created on public or private computers,  devices, or other media;  Any and all documents related to any services, programs, software, technology, support, or other  benefits utilized by SDPD through its membership in ARGIS, whether held and/or created on public or  private computers, devices, or other media;  Any and all documents relating to facial recognition technology, vehicle license plate reading  technology, optical sensors, and any other technology supported by or through the ARGIS program and  utilized by SDPD, whether held and/or created on public or private computers, devices, or other media;  I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply  if you can make that determination without having to review the record[s] in question.   1 If you determine that any or all or the information qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you  to note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the exemption is discretionary, and if so whether  it is necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to withhold the information.  If you determine that some but not all of the information is exempt from disclosure and that you intend  to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the time being and make the rest available as requested.  In any event, please provide a signed notification citing the legal authorities on which you rely if you  determine that any or all of the information is exempt and will not be disclosed.  If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me  at 619‐425‐7400. I ask that you notify me of any duplication costs exceeding $100 before you duplicate  the records so that I may decide which records I want copied.   Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.   Arturo Castañares  Publisher / CEO  La Prensa San Diego  San Diego's Original  Latino Community Newspaper    Tel. 619.425.7400  www.laprensaSD.com  2 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AND OTHER LAWS Exhibit “B” From: Art Castañares   Date: May 30, 2019 at 10:07:42 AM PDT  To: dnisleit@pd.sandiego.gov, munozm@sandiego.gov  Subject: Re: Public Records Act request  Chief Nisleit.      I am following up on my request under the California Public Records Act  which I submitted on May 15.      I have not yet received any response from your office.      Please forward the requested documents electronically.      Thank you for your attention to my request.      Respectfully,     Art  Arturo Castañares  Publisher / CEO  1 La Prensa San Diego  San Diego's Original  Latino Community Newspaper     Tel. 619.425.7400  www.laprensaSD.com    On May 15, 2019, at 5:22 PM, Art Castañares   wrote:  Chief David Nisleit  San Diego Police Department  1401 Broadway  San Diego, CA 92101          RE: Public Records Act Request  Chief Nisleit:  Pursuant to my rights under the California Public  Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I  ask to obtain a copy of the following, which I  understand to be held by your agency:  Any and all documents related to any contract,  agreement, lease, or other materials related to the use  of Automated Regional Justice Information System  (ARJIS) by SDPD, whether held and/or created on public  or private computers, devices, or other media;  Any and all documents related to the SDPD request at  City Council to continue its membership in ARGIS,  approved by the Council on May 14, 2019, whether held  and/or created on public or private computers, devices,  or other media;  2 Any and all documents related to any services,  programs, software, technology, support, or other  benefits utilized by SDPD through its membership in  ARGIS, whether held and/or created on public or private  computers, devices, or other media;  Any and all documents relating to facial recognition  technology, vehicle license plate reading technology,  optical sensors, and any other technology supported by  or through the ARGIS program and utilized by  SDPD, whether held and/or created on public or private  computers, devices, or other media;  I ask for a determination on this request within 10 days  of your receipt of it, and an even prompter reply if you  can make that determination without having to review  the record[s] in question.   If you determine that any or all or the information  qualifies for an exemption from disclosure, I ask you to  note whether, as is normally the case under the Act, the  exemption is discretionary, and if so whether it is  necessary in this case to exercise your discretion to  withhold the information.  If you determine that some but not all of the  information is exempt from disclosure and that you  intend to withhold it, I ask that you redact it for the  time being and make the rest available as requested.  In any event, please provide a signed notification citing  the legal authorities on which you rely if you determine  that any or all of the information is exempt and will not  be disclosed.  If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite  your attention to my request, please contact me at 619‐ 425‐7400. I ask that you notify me of any duplication  costs exceeding $100 before you duplicate the records  so that I may decide which records I want copied.   Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.   Arturo Castañares  Publisher / CEO  La Prensa San Diego  3 San Diego ?5 Original Latino Community Newspaper Tel. 619.425.7400 VERIFICATION [!] 0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Diego I have read the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY, INJUNCTIVE, AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE etc. and know its contents. CHECK APPLICABLE PARAGRAPH I am a party to this action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I am 0 an Officer 0 a partner 0 a of - - - - - - - - - - - lliJ ---------~--~--~------------------------------------------~~~~--~--~~~~~~· 0 a party to this action, and am authorized to make this verification for and on its behalf, and I make this verification for that reason. Iii I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. 0 The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my own knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. I am one of the attorneys for -------------------------------------------=---,---:=------:-::---:-a party to this action. Such party is absent from the county of aforesaid where such attorneys have their offices, and I make this verification for and on behalf of that party for that reason. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that the matters stated in the foregoing document are true. , 20 19 , at San Diego , California. Executed on June 5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. ~~ Art Castaiiares Signature Type or Print Name PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF I am employed in the county of I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is, , State of California. On - - - - - - , 20 _ _ , I served the foregoing document described as 0 0 on in this action _b_y_p-la_c...,.in-g---,th_e_tru_e__ co_p...,.i-es_t...,..h-e-re-o-=f,...e-nc--:1,-o-se-d:-i:-n-s-c-al:-e-=d-envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list: by placing 0 the original 0 a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: D BYMAIL 0 * I deposited such envelope in the mail at , California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. D As follows I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at 0 0 0 California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Executed on , 20 , at , California. **(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee. Executed on , 20 , at , California. (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. I (Federal) declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar ofthis court at whose direction the service was made. Signature Type or Print Name • (By MAIL SIGNATURE MUST BE OF PERSON DEPOSmNG ENVS.OPE IN MAIL SLOT. BOX. OR BAG) -(FOR PERSONAL SERVICE SIGNATURE MUST BE THAT OF MESSENGER) 2001 C Amecican Lega!Net. Inc..