St. Croix v. Superior Court

Good Law
175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 202·2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 682·228 Cal. App. 4th 434·2014 WL 3704275
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 28, 2014A140308California4,225 words

Opinion

Opinion

Becton, J.

San Francisco resident Allen Grossman, relying on state and local public records laws, sought to obtain from John St. Croix, Executive Director of the San Francisco Ethics Commission (Ethics Commission or commission), documents pertaining to the development of certain commission regulations. St. Croix provided more than 120 documents, but, citing the attorney-client privilege (see Evid. Code, §§ 952, 954), withheld 24 written communications between the commission and the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.

Grossman argued, and the trial court held, that a provision of the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Sunshine Ordinance or ordinance) (S.F. Admin. Code, ch. 67) required disclosure of the documents, even if they otherwise would be protected by the privilege. St. Croix and the commission (to whom we sometimes refer collectively as City) petition for a writ of mandate, contending City’s charter incorporates the attorney-client privilege and supersedes any contrary ordinance provision. We agree, and we hold the trial court erred in ordering disclosure of the documents. We therefore grant City’s writ petition.

I. BACKGROUND

In October 2012, Grossman submitted a request…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.