SIERRA CLUB v. S.C. (COUNTY OF ORANGE)Real Party in Interest, County of Orange, Answer to Petition for ReviewCal.July 29, 2011C O P Y Supreme Court Case No. $194708 4th App.Dist., Div. Three, Case No. G044138 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner VS. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, Respondent. oa&D COUNTY OF ORANGE. Real Party in Interest. yur 2 9 20" ick clerk After a Decision By The Court of Appeal a ae Fourth Appellate District, Division Three pepe Appeal from Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009-00121878 Hon. James J. Di Cesare ANSWEROF REAL PARTYIN INTEREST COUNTY OF ORANGE TO PETITION FOR REVIEW NICHOLASS. CHRISOS, COUNTY COUNSEL Mark D. Servino, Senior Deputy (SBN 186941) Rebecca S. Leeds, Deputy (SBN 221930) 333 West Santa Ana Boulevard, Suite 407 Santa Ana, California 92701 Telephone: (714) 834-3300 Facsimile: (714) 834-2359 Attorneys for Real Party In Interest County of Orange Supreme Court Case No. $194708 4th App.Dist., Div. Three, Case No. G044138 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner VS. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, Respondent. COUNTY OF ORANGE. Real Party in Interest. After a Decision By The Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate District, Division Three Appeal from Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009-00121878 Hon. James J. Di Cesare ANSWEROF REAL PARTYIN INTEREST COUNTY OF ORANGE TO PETITION FOR REVIEW NICHOLAS 8S. CHRISOS, COUNTY COUNSEL Mark D. Servino, Senior Deputy (SBN 186941) Rebecca S. Leeds, Deputy (SBN 221930) 333 West Santa Ana Boulevard, Suite 407 Santa Ana, California 92701 Telephone: (714) 834-3300 Facsimile: (714) 834-2359 Attorneys for Real Party In Interest County of Orange TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.0.icceceeeseseeseseeeeeesssseseaeeerseeeesnereaaes ll INTRODUCTION ooo.eceeecceneeeeeeceneseseeeeeeneaeeesseeesateeeaeeeeaesennerenaes 1 STATEMENTOF THE CASE...cecccseseeeeeesneeeneeersseseatestarerseeeres 2 ARGUMENT0... ecsscecesesseeeeeesereeaeenseesaeseaeeneeeseeseaseaeeesesesesenaeeenresneeenees 3 I. THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE SANTA CLARA DECISION...... 3 I. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSEIT MISREPRESENTS THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT AND ACCEPTED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL woeeecceeccsseesecssesrecreetssecseeseserenesreessnetsaes 4 CONCLUSIONooceccccceneseeeeeseseeeseecseeeseassesaeesssessaasesaueeseesesateneeees 6 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Santa Clara v. Superior Court ofSanta Clara County (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301... cccccecssecesseesessesseeesseeseecesseseneass 1,3,4 Statutes Government Code SOCtion 6254.9 ....ccccccescesssccccsessecescnsecseccssccssesescessesrsoseesecsaesneseeeeeeres 1,3,4,5 Section 6254.9(a) ..aceececcccseccsesecsseceseesseecsneeeesseesessesesessessecseecseesessessssenees 4 Section 6254.9(b) .....cccescccsssccssscecsseeceessscceesesusessessesssseeessussssaceeesarevenseeess 4 SeOCtiOn 6255 ....ecccsccccsssssecsesecessscsesseeessseeeccesceseeessssssessusecsessvsceesseestsassaeees 4 Rules of Court B.SOO 0... ceeceeseccsssssscesssssssscecensseceesaeeesscessneseeesececesseauseseneassesesesacseusentaeeensaes 2 B.S0O(D)(1).oe eccesscecsssssssececssssecseseeesecessneceecesesecssesevevsaeuecussseseseesensueentaes 5 B.SOO(C)(2) ee cecsscecsscccsssesscessseecssecessetscsssececcessseesesssssesuecessaussatesesuesssserseees 5 li INTRODUCTION This case is not about the denial of access to information, but whetherthe information must be producedin a specific format, i.e., in a geographic information system (“GIS”) file format that can be read by a computer mapping system. The trial court found that the County agreed to produce non-GIS formatted records that contain the same information sought by the Sierra Club. This factual finding was not challenged. In a well reasoned opinion, the Court ofAppeal properly framed the issue as whether the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) requires a government agency to produce the database associated with a GIS in a GIS file format pursuant to Government Code section 6254.9’ at the cost of duplication. (See Slip Opn., p. 3.) The Court ofAppeal specifically examined whether Section 6254.9’s “computer mapping systems” exemption includes a GIS database like the one maintained by the County. (Slip Opn., p. 13.) The Sierra Club attempts to recast the issue as a question of whether an unspecified “computer software exclusion” exempts “non-software computer data” from disclosure, which mischaracterizes the plain language of the exclusion for computer mapping systems found in Section 6254.9. The Sierra Club primarily contends that the Court ofAppeal’s decision conflicts with the decision in Santa Clara v. Superior Court ofSanta Clara County (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301 (hereinafter “Santa Clara’). Thereis no conflict. The Santa Clara decision expressly declined to address the computer mapping system exemption. // ' All section references are to the Government Code unless otherwise stated. 1 Accordingly, because Petitioner has not shown whythis Court should grant review under Rule 8.500, the Petition should be denied. STATEMENT OF THE CASE” The record sought by the Sierra Club is the “OC Landbase,”i.e., “the County’s parcel geographic data in a GIS file format.” (Slip Opn., p. 3.) “GIS” stands for “geographic information system.” (/bid.) A geographic information system is “an integrated collection of computer software and data used to view and manage information about geographical places, analyze spatial relationships, and modelspatial processes.” (Jd. at p. 5.) “GISfile format’ meansthat the geographic data can be analyzed, viewed, and managed with GIS software.” (/d. at p. 3.) The County distributes the OC Landbasein a GISfile format to members ofthe public if they pay a licensing fee and agreeto a license. (id. at p. 4.) The GIS license revenue accounts for 26 percentofthe County’s cost to keep the OC Landbase upto date. (/d. at p. 5; 5 PA 1350.) The County agreed to produce non-GIS formatted recordsto the Sierra Club without any license fee. (Slip Opn., p. 4; 5 PA 1350.) These records contained the same information stored in the OC Landbase and include copies of source documents containing parcel related information (such as assessmentrolls and transfer deeds) “in Adobe PDFelectronic formator printed out as paper copies,” rather than in a GISfile format. (Ibid.) However, the “Sierra Club cannotuse the analytical, display and manipulation functions of its GIS software on the OC Landbaseif the * We agree with the facts stated in the Court of Appeal’s opinion, which we summarize here for the Court’s convenience, supplemented with a few additional details. All citations to the Court of Appeal’s opinionareto its final decision. 2 County produces[the information] in Adobe PDF formator printed out on paper.” (Slip Opn., p. 4.) The Sierra Club askedthetrial court to issue a writ of mandate “compelling the County to provide the OC Landbase in a GISfile format to the Sierra Club for a fee consisting of only the direct costs of [duplication], and with no requirement that the Sierra Club execute a non-disclosure or other agreement with the County.” (Slip Opn., p. 4.) Before ruling, the trial court heard oral argument, allowed extensive briefing, and conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing. (/d. at p. 5.) The trial court issued a written statement of decision denying the Sierra Club’s petition. (5 PA 1362.) The Sierra Club filed a petition for an extraordinary writ seeking review ofthe trial court’s decision with the Court ofAppeal. In a published opinionfiled on May 31, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmedthe decision ofthetrial court and denied the petition for an extraordinary writ. (Slip. Opn., p. 3.) The Sierra Club seeks review ofthat decision. ARGUMENT I. THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE SANTA CLARA DECISION The Sierra Club contends that the Court ofAppeal’s decision conflicts with the Sixth Appellate District’s decision in Santa Clarav. Superior Court ofSanta Clara County (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301. To the contrary, the Court’s of Appeal’s decision is consistent with that opinion. Writing for the court, Justice Ikola acknowledgesthat the Santa Clara decision expressly declined to consider the exemption for computer mapping systems found in Section 6254.9. (Slip Opn., p. 18, citing Santa Clara, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p.1322, fn.7.) HI The Santa Clara decision examined whetherthe designation of Santa Clara’s GIS basemapasprotectedcritical infrastructure information (PCII) pursuant to the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002 (CII Act) precluded the disclosure of the basemap. (Santa Clara, supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at p. 1321.) The respondent in Santa Clara asserted that withholding the GIS Basemap wasnecessary to prevent a terrorist attack. (Id. at p. 1328.) Amici curiae in Santa Clara attempted to address Section 6254.9’s computer mapping system exemption. (/d. at p. 1312, fn. 4 and p. 1322, fn. 7.) However, the court in Santa Clara expressly declined to consider this exemption: In this court, by contrast, the County's amici curiae urge an additional exemption, based on section 6254.9, which the County argued unsuccessfully below. Underthat section, computer software—defined to include computer mappingsystems—is not treated as a public record. (§ 6254.9, subds.(a), (b).) Since the point is raised only by amici curiae, we need not and do not considerit. “Amici curiae must take the caseas theyfindit. Interjecting new issuesat this pointis inappropriate.”[cites omitted] We therefore decline to address the exemption issue raised solely by the County's amici curiae here. (Id. at p. 1322, fn. 7 [emphasis added].) Unlike the respondentin Santa Clara, the County’s argumentsare not based onnational security, Section 6255’s catchall exemption, or copyright, but on the exemption for computer mapping systems found in Section 6254.9. Instead of a conflict, the Court of Appeal’s decision expressly agrees with Santa Clara in noting that “the appellate court there declined to consider whether Santa Clara County’s GIS basemap was a computer mapping system excluded from disclosure under section 6254.9 because the issue was raised only by Santa Clara County’s amici curiae.” (Slip Opn., p. 18.) Section 6254.9’s computer mapping system exemptionis the sole issue in this case. Thus, the Court of Appeal decision and Santa Clara do not conflict and review is not warranted. Il. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSEIT MISREPRESENTS THE FACTS AS FOUND BY THE TRIAL COURT AND ACCEPTED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL The rules governing petitions for review provide that the Supreme Court “will accept the Court ofAppeal opinion’s statementofthe issues and facts,” aside from any alleged omissions or misstatements raised in a petition for rehearing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500(c)(2).) The Sierra Club’s Petition for Review ignores this rule. Instead of relating facts as found bythetrial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeal, the Petition introduces new allegations of fact and anecdotalreferences regarding alleged admissions by the County, the use of GIS bythird parties, and the alleged GISactivities of the State, which are not based on the Court of Appeal’s decision or the record on appeal. (See Petition 3-7, 9, 17 and 19.) The Sierra Club did not argue before the Court of Appealthatthetrial court’s factual findings were not supported by substantial evidenceor that evidence was improperly excluded. Thus, this eleventh-houreffort to introduce evidence outside of the record fails to demonstrate that review is necessary to secure uniformity of decision or to settle an important question of law. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.500(b)(1).) H/ /I H/ // CONCLUSION The Sierra Club’s Petition does not raise an unsettled legal issue. Rather, it attempts to manufacture disagreement amongthedistricts where there is none, and seeks Legislative action from this Court duetoits disagreement with the result mandated bythe statutory scheme. Theresult sought by Sierra Club would undermine established law andstatutory norms. Accordingly, as there is no basis for review,the Petition for Review should be denied. Dated: July 28, 2011 NICHOLAS 8S. CHRISOS, COUNTY COUNSEL MARK D. SERVINO, SENIOR DEPUTY REBECCA 8. LEEDS, DEPUTY »ft,Lede Rebecca S. Leeds, Deputy Attorneys for Real Party In Interest County of Orange CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT I certify that this brief contains 1,482 words, not including tables or this certificate, according to the word count function of the word- processing program usedto producethe brief. Therefore, the number of words in the brief complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 8.204(c)(1). By: Leia Lhrde Rebecca S. Leeds PROOF OF SERVICE I do hereby declare that I am a citizen of the United States employed in the County of Orange, over 18 years old and that my business addressis 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Ste. 407, Santa Ana, California 92701. I am not a party to the within action. On July 28, 2011, I served the following document ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEWonall otherpartiesto this action by placing a true copy of said documentin a sealed envelope in the following manner: [x] (BY U.S. MAIL) placed such envelope(s) addressed as shown below for collection and mailing at Santa Ana, California, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this office’s practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondenceis placed for collection and mailing,it is deposited in the ordinary course ofbusiness with the United States Postal Service in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. (BY UNITED PARCEL SERVICE (UPS)) I placed such envelope(s) addressed as shown below for collection and delivery by UPS with delivery fees paid or provided for in accordance with this office’s practice. Iam readil familiar with this office’s practice for processing correspondencefor delivery the following day by UPS. I declare under penalty of perjury underthe lawsofthe State of California that the foregoingis true and correct. July 28, 2011 aa Anthony Lievanos NAMES AND ADDRESSES TO WHOM SERVICE WAS MADE Sabrina D. Venskus, Esq. Attorneys for Petitioner Dean Wallruff, Esq. Venskus & Associates, P.C. 21S. California St., Ste. 204 Ventura, CA 93001 Fax No. 213 482-4246 Clerk of Court Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate Dist., Div. 3 601 W. Santa AnaBlvd. Santa Ana, CA 92702 Fax No. 714 664-0897 Clerk of Court, on behalf of Honorable James J. Di Cesare, Dept. C-18 Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange, Central Justice Center 700 Civic Center Drive West Santa Ana, CA 92701
