Opinion
No. A153653.
10-25-2018
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GOOGLE LLC, Defendant and Appellant.
[Modification of opinion (27 Cal.App.5th 937; ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___), upon denial of rehearing.]
THE COURT. — IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed herein on September 28, 2018, be modified as follows:
1. On page 1, in the first sentence of the opinion [27 Cal.App.5th 941, advance report, 1st par. of opn., line 2], the words "writ of administrative mandate" are changed to "writ of mandate" so the first sentence reads as follows:
Footnote 1 remains in place at the end of the first sentence of the opinion, unchanged.
This is an appeal from the trial court's decision to grant the petition for writ of mandate of the National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area Chapter (Guild), and to issue a writ directing the City of Hayward and its Chief of Police Diane Urban (collectively, City) to refund the Guild for two payments made to cover certain of the City's costs in complying with the Guild's requests for production under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.) (CPRA).
2. On page 15, the last full paragraph of the opinion immediately preceding the disposition [27 Cal.App.5th 952, advance report, 1st full par., lines 3-6], beginning "Accordingly, we conclude based on the language of the statute" and ending "computer programming in the form of the Windows Movie Maker software," is modified to read as follows:
Accordingly, we conclude based on the language of the statute, the legislative history, and policy considerations that the costs allowable under section 6253.9, subdivision (b)(2) include the City's expenses incurred in this case to construct a copy of the police body camera video recordings for disclosure purposes, including the cost of special computer services and programming (e.g., the Windows Movie Maker software) used to extract exempt material from these recordings in order to produce a copy thereof to the Guild. We thus remand to the trial court to conduct a further evidentiary
hearing with respect to precisely which costs, among those billed to the Guild, the City is entitled to recover under this provision.
There is no change in the judgment.
Respondent's petition for rehearing is denied.