COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS v. S.C. (ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA)

Real Parties in Interest, ACLU of Southern California and Eric Preven, Request for Judicial Notice

Cal.March 28, 2016

No. $226645 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATEOF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,ef a/., Petitioners, y. THE SUPERIOR COURTOF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; “ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,¢¢al., RealPartiesin Interest. Review After Order Denying CPRA Request Second Appellate District, Division Three Case No.: B257230 On Appealfrom the Los Angeles Superior Court The Honorable Luis A. Lavin Sup. Ct. Case No.: BS145753 MOTIONFOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND ERIC PREVEN; DECLARATIONOF COLIN D. WELLS WITH EXHIBITS A-G Peter J. Fliasberg (SBN 189110) Jennifer Brockett (SBN 193433) ACLU FOUNDATION OF *Rochelle L. Wilcox (SBN 197790) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Colin D, Wells (SBN 286684) 1313 West 8th Street DianaPalacios (SBN 290923) Los Angeles, CA 90017 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Tel.: (213) 977-9500 865 S, Figueroa, Suite 2400 Fax: (213) 977-5299 LosAngeles, California 90017 Tel: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Attorneysfor Real Parties in Interest ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and ERIC PREVEN No. $226645 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTYOF L.OS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,efai, Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,etal, RealPartiesin Interest. Review After Order Denying CPRA Request Second Appellate Distriet, Division Three Case No.: B257230 On Appeal from the Los Angeles Superior Court The Honorable Luis A. Lavin Sup. Ct. Case No. BS145753 MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND ERIC PREVEN; DECLARATION OF COLIN D. WELLS WITH EXHIBITS A-G PeterJ, Eliasberg (SBN 189110) Jennifer Brockett (SBN 193433} ACLU FOUNDATION OF *Rochelle L. Wilcox (SBN 197790) SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Colin D. Wells (SBN 286684) 1313 West8th Street Diana Palacios (SBN 290923) Los Angeles, CA 90017 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Tel.: (213) 977-9500 865 S. Figueroa, Suite 2400 Fax: (213) 977-5299 Los Angeles, California 90017 Tel: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Attorneysfor Real Parties in Interest ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and ERIC PREVEN TO THE HONORABLETANIG, CANTIL-SAKAUYE,CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT: Petitioners ACLU ofSouthern California and Eric Preven(collectively, “ACLU”) respectfully move this court, pursuant to Catifornia Rule of Court 8.252 and Evidence Code §§ 452, 453, and 459, to take judicial notice of the following: tk Order Awarding Attorneys’Fees in favor ofPlaintiff Danielle Baez against Defendants Burbank Unified Schoo!District and Craig Jellison, entered on July 11, 2014 in the matter Baez v, Burbank Unified Sch, Dist, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC372092 (“Attomeys’ Fees Order”). See Declaration of Colin D, Wells (“Wells Decl.”) 2; Ex. A, A September 25, 2012 news article by Rex Dalton entitled “OC Familics Face Fierce Kight for Special Ed Services,” publishedin the Voice ofOC. Wells Deel. { 3; Ex. B. A Seplember27, 2012 newsarticle by Rex Dalton entitled “A ‘Brotherhood? Fights Families Wanting Special Ed,”published in the Voice ofOC. Wells Deel. € 4; Ex. C. An Detobet 4, 2012 news article by Rex Dalton entitled “Questions Surround Attorneys’ Actions in Special Ed Case,” publishedin the Voice ofOC. Wells Deel. 5; Ex. D. An October 2015 article by Matthew Heller entitled “Think Twice Before Suing This SchoolDistrict” published in California Lawyer. Wells Decl. | 6; Ex. E. 6. A January 23, 2014 article by Allison Wisk entitled “Lawyer fees add up in records cases[:] Some agencies pay thousands to handie information requests” published in Dallay News. Wells Decl. 4 6; Ex. F. 7. An August 22, 2013 article by Katy Steinmetz entitled “Mediation Complete for San Diego Mayor BobFilner, Details Still Confidential” published in Time. Wells Deel. § 7; Ex. G. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS UTHORITIES Rvidence Code section 459 allows reviewing courts to take judicial notice “of any matter specified in Section 452.” Cal. Evid. Code § 45%(a). Forthe reasons stated below, this Court should take judicial notive ofthe attached materials, whichiustrate the importance of understanding how the public can use information that maybe revealed in attomey invoices to oversee government conduct, and hold public agencies accountable for the choices they make in spending taxpayer money. A. This Court Should Take Judicial Notice of the Attorneys’ Fees Order Submitted as Exhibit A. ‘The ACLUrespcetfullyrequests that the Court takejudicial notice of the Attomeys’ Fees Order, submitted as Exhibit A, which is a documentfiled in a court proceeding and thus falls squarely within the scope ofjudicially noticeable material under Section 452(d), Evidence Code § 452(d) authorizes this Court to take judicial notice of, amongother things, “[rJecords of(1) anycourt ofthis state ... ” and California courts routinely take judicial notive ofcourt records for a varicty ofpurposes. See, 8-5 Magnolia Square Homeowners Ass'n v. Safeco Ins. Co. ofAmerica (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1049, 1056-1057 (court can “takejudicial notice ofthe truth offacts asserted in documents suchas orders"); County ofSan Diego v. Sierra (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 126, 128 n.2 (taking judicial notice of an incomeand expense declaration filed in a ‘superior court case}, The Attorneys’ Fees Orderis highly relevant becauseit is an example ofa case in which taxpayers mayquestion the choices madebypublic agencies in defending a lawsuit by a former employee. Tt demonstrates whythe public should have access to invoice information,to give citizens the tools they needto evaluate the true cost of aggressiveJitigation, and have informed conversations with the public agencies who decide which law firm to hire, and what constraints theyshould place on thosefirms, or with othor members of thepublic, icles B. This Court Should Take Judicial Notice Of The Submitted As Exhibits B-G. ‘The ACLUalso requests that the Court take judicial notice ofthe articles submitted as Lxhibits B-G, Under Evidence Code §§ 459(a), 452(h) and 452(d)(2), this Court may take judicial notice of “facts ... that are not reasonablysubject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination byresort (o sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy,” which includes nows articles. See, eg. Seclig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 807 & n.5 (taking judicial notice of newspaper articles to establish that topic generated public debate); McKelvey v. Boeing North American, Inc, (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 151, 162 (takingjudicial notice of newspaper articles to establish “widespread publicity”of incident). Similarly, Internet printouts also are the proper subject ofjudicial notice, See Pollstar v. Gigmania Ltd. (E.D, Cal, 2000) 170 F.Supp.2d 974, 978 (taking judicial notice ofprintout from plaintiff's web site); Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co. (C.D. Cal, 2000) 107 F.Supp.2d 1212, 1216(taking judicial notice ofpages from Warhol Museum’s web site). ‘This Court can andshould take judicial notice ofthe articles submitted with this Motion as Exhibits B-G, which demonstrate the typeof informationcitizens can obtain from attomeyinvoices. For example, in int ! FederationofProf & Tech. Eng's» Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal,4th 319, 334, the Court relied on several articles that had been submitted by the newspaper. As the Court explained there, (hese articles “used information concerning public employcesalaries to illustrate claimed nepotism, favoritism, or financial mismanagementin state and local government,”and that “[iJhese examples, even when they reveal no impropriety, amplyillustrate that disclosure of government salary information servesa significant public interest." id. Here too, whether (he underlying information is true or not, the articles submitted reveal the valuable reporting that canbe done with the information atissue in this case. CONCLUSION Forall of these reasons, the ACLU respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice ofExhibits A-G. Respectfully submitted this 28th day of March, 2016. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALU'ORNIA Peter J. Eliasberg DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Jennifer L. Brockett Rochelle L. Wileox Colin D, Wells DianaPalacios Koco Klean Rochelle L. Wilcox. Attorneysfor Keal Parties in Interest ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and ERIC PREVEN DECLARATION OF COLIN D. WELLS 1, Colin D, Wells, declare: 1 Jam an attorney admitted to practice before all the couris of the State of California and before this Court. | am anattorney at the law firm ofDavis Wright Tremaine LLP (“DW'I”), and one ofthe attomeysrepresenting Petitioners ACLU of Southern California and Eric Preven(collectively, “ACLU”), The matters stated below: are true of my own personal knowledge. 2. Attached as Exhibit A to this declaration is a true and correct copyofthe Order Awarding Attorneys’ Feesin favor ofPlaintiff Danielle Baez against Defendants Burbank Unified SchoolDistrict and Craig Jellison, entered onJuly 11, 2014in the matter Baez v, Burbank Unified Sch. Dist, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No, BC372092. E Attached as Exhibit B to this declarationis a true and correct copyof a September 25, 2012 newsarticle by Rex Daltonentitled “OC Families Face Fictce Fight for Special Fd Services,”publishedin the Voice ofOC, which was downloaded fromthe Internet at my direction from the following website: http;'/voiceofoc.org/2012/09%/0c- families-facc-fierce-fight-for-special-ed-services/. 4. Attached as Exhibit to this declarationis a true and correct copy ofa September 27, 2012 newsarticle by Rex Daltonentitled “A ‘Brotherhood’ Fights Families Wanting Special Ed,” publishedin the Voice ofOC, which was downloaded from the Internetat my directionfrom the following website: http://voiceofoc.org’2012/09/a-brotherhood-fights-families-wanting-special-ed/, 5. Attached as Exhibit D to this declaration is a true and correet copy ofan October 4, 2012 newsarticle by Rex Dalton entitled “Questions Surround Attorneys’ Actions in Special Ed Case,” published in the Voice ofOC, which was downloadedfiom the Internet at my direction from the following website: htip:!/voiceofoe,org/2012/0/questions-surround-altomeys-actions-in-special-ed-vase/. 6. Attached as Exhibit E to this declaration is a tue and correct copyof an October 2015 article by MatthewHeller entitled “Think ‘Iwice Before Suing This Schoo! District” published in California Lawyer, which was downloaded from the Internet at my direction trom the following website: http://wwwcallawyer.com/2015/1 0/burbank- unified-school-distictlawsuit/. 7. Attached as Exhibit F to this declaration is a true and correct copyof a January 23, 2014 article by Allison Wisk entitled “Lawyer fees add upin records cases[] Someagencies paythousands to handle information requests" published in Dallas News, which was downloaded from the Intemet at my direction from the following website: htp:J/res.dallasnewws.com/intoractives/records/records-costs.html, 8. Attached as Exhibit G to this declaration is a true and correct copy ofan August 22, 2013 article by Katy Steinmetz entitled “Mediation Complete for San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, Details Still Confidential” published in Time, which was downloaded from the Internet at my direction from the following website: ‘tip://swampland time,com/2013/08/22/mediation-complete-for-san-diego-mayor-bob- filner-details-still-confidential/. I declare under penaltyof perjury under the laws ofthe State of California thatthe foregoingis true and correct and thatthis declaration was executed on March 28,2016, at San Francisco, California. Colin D, Wells PROOF OF SERVICE I, Elizabeth Wyatt, declare as follows: Lam employedin the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 andnot a partyto the within action. My business address is Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, California 94111-6533, On March 28, 2016, I served the foregoing documentdescribed as: MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ACLUOF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND ERIC PREVEN; DECLARATIONOF COLIN D, WELLS WITHEXHIBITS A-G ontheinterested partiesinthis actionas stated below: Timothy T. Coates, Esq. Barbara W. Ravitz, Esq. GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND, LLP 5900 Wilshire Blvd., 12"" Floor LosAngeles, CA 90036 MaryC. Wickham,Esq. County Counsel Roger H, Granbo, Esq. Asst. County Counsel Jonathan McCaverty, Esq. Dep. County Counsel 648 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration 500 West Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012-2713 PROOFOF SERVICE tcoates@gmsr.com bravitz@emsr.com Phone: Fax: (310) 859-7811 (310) 276-5261 Attorneys for Petitioners COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORSand THE OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL jmecaverty@counsel.lacounty.g0v Phone: Fax: (213) 974-1828 (213) 626-2105 Attorneys for Petitioners COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORSand TUE OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL Hon,Carolyn B, Kuhl Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court 111 North Hill Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Clerk of the Court Court ofAppealofthe State of California Second Appellate District Ronald Reagan State Building 300 S, Spring Street 2nd Floor, North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90013 Frederick R. Bennett III, Esq. Court Counsel LosAngeles Superior Court 111 North Hill Street, Room 546 Los Angeles, CA 90012 ACLUofSouthern California, et al. v. County ofLos Angeles, et al. Case No, BS145753, Superior Court ofCalifornia, County ofLos Angeles County ofLos Angeles Board of Supervisors, et al. v. Superior Court ofThe Los Angeles County, Respondent andACLUofSouthern California, Real Parties in Interest Case No.2d Civ. No. B257230, Court of Appeal ofthe State of California, 2" Appellate Dist,, Div. 3 ACLUofSouthern California, et al. v. County ofLos Angeles,et al. Case No. BS145753, Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of Los Angeles. & (BY MAIL)Byplacing a true copyofthe foregoing document(s) ina sealed envelope addressed as set forth above. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailingfollowing ordinary business practices. 1 am readilyfamiliar with this Firm’s practice for collection and processing ofcorrespondencefor mailing, Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the UnitedStates Postal Service on that same day, with postagethereon fully prepaid at San Francisco, California,in the ordinary course ofbusiness. 1 am aware that on motion ofthe party served, service is presumedinvalid ifpostal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one dayafter date of deposit for mailing in affidavit, Executed on March 28, 2016 at San Francisco, California, I declare under penaltyofperjury, underthe lawsofthe State ofCalifornia, that the foregoing is tue and correct. Signature M Elizabeth Wyatt Print Name PROOF OF SERVICE 2 TO THE HONORABLE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE,CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO THE ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT: Petitioners ACLUof Southern California and Eric Preven (collectively, “ACLU”) respectfully move this court, pursuant to California Rule of Court 8,252 andEvidence Code §§ 452, 453, and 459, to take judicial noticeofthe following: L. Order Awarding Attomeys* Fees in favor of PlaintiffDanielle Bacz against Defendants Burbank Unified SchootDistrict and Craig Jellison, entered on July 11, 2014 in the matter Baez v. Burbank Unified Sch. Dist. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC372092 “Attorneys? Foes Order”), See Declaration ofColin D. Wells (“Wells Decl.”) 2; Bx. A. A September25, 2012 news article by Rex Daltonentitled “OC Families Face Fierce Fight for Special Ed Services,” published in the Voice ofOC. Wells Decl. € 3; Ex. B. ‘A September 27, 2012 newsarticle by Rex Daltonentitled “A‘Brotherhood” Wells Fights Families Wanting Special Fd,” publishedin the Voice of U Decl. 4; Ex. C. ‘An October 4, 2012 news article by Rex Dalton entitled “Questions Surround Attorneys’ Actions in Special Fd Case,” published in the Voice ofOC. Wells Deel. 5; Ex. D. ‘An October 2015 article by Matthew Heller entitled “Ihink Twice Before Suing This School District” published in California Lawyer. Wells Decl.46; Ex. E. 6. A January 23, 2014 article by Allison Wisk entitled “Lawyer fees add up in records cases[:] Some agencies pay thousands to handle information requests” published in Dallas News. Wells Decl. 6; Ex. F. 7. An August22, 2013 article by Katy Steinmetz entitled “Mediation Complete for San Diego Mayor BobFilner, Details Still Confidential"published in Time, Wells Decl. "7; Ex, G. MEMORANDUM OFPO! AND AUTHORITIES Evidence Code section 459 allows reviewing courts to take judicial notice “ofany matter specified in Section 452.” Cal. Evid. Code § 459(a). For the reasons stated below,this Court should take judicial notice of the attached materials, whichillustrate the importance of understanding how the public can use information that may be revealed in attomey invoices to oversee government conduet, and hold public agencies accountable for the choices they makein spending taxpayer money. A This Court Should Take Judicial Notice of the Attorneys’ Fees Order Submitted as Exhibit A. The ACLU respectfully requests that the Court take judicial noticeof the Attorneys’ Fees Order, submitted as Exhibit A, which is a documentfiled in a court proceeding and thus {alls squarely within the scope of judiciallynoticeable material under Section 452(d), Evidence Code § 452(d) authorizes this Court to take judicial notice of, among other things, “[rJecords of (1) any court ofthis state ...” and California courts routinely take judicial notice ofcourt records for a variety of purposes, See, e.g, Magnolia Square Homeowners Ass'n v, Safeco Ins, Co. ofAmerica (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d1049, 1056-1057 (court can “take judicial notice ofthe truth offacts asserted in documents such as orders”); County ofSan Diego v. Sierra (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 126, 128 n.2 (taking judicial notice of an income and expensedeclarationfiled ina superior court case), The Attorneys’ Fees Orderis highly relevant becauseit is an example ofa case in which taxpayers may question the choices made by public agencies in defending a lawsuit by a former employee, Tt demonstrates whythe public should have access to invoice information,to give citizens the tools theyneed to evaluate the true cost of aggressive litigation, and haveinformed conversations with the public agencies who decide which law firm to hire, and what constraints they should place on those fitms, or with other members ofthe public. B. This Court Should Take Judicial Notice Of The Articles Submitted As Exhibits B-G, The ACLUalso requests that the Court take judicial noticeof thearticles submitted as Exhibits B-G. Under Evidence Code §§ 459(a), 452(h)and 452(d)(2),this Court may take judicial notice of “facts ... that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable ofimmediate and accurate determination by resort to sources ofreasonably indisputable accuracy,” which includes newsarticles. See, e.g, Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp, (2002) 97 Cal.App4th 798, 807 & n.5 (laking judicial notice of newspaper articles to establish that topic generated public debate); McKelvey v, Boeing North American, inc. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 151, 162 (laking judicial notice of newspaper articlesto establish “widespread publicity”of incident), Similarly, Intemet printouts also are the proper subject ofjudicial notice. See Pollstar v, Gigmania Ltd (ED.Cal. 2000) 170 F.Supp.2d 974, 978 (taking judicial notice ofprintout from plaintiffs website); Cairns v, Franklin Mint Co. (C.D.Cal. 2000) 107 F.Supp.2d 1212, 1216 (laking judicial notice of pages from Warhol Museum’s websito), This Court canand should takejudicial notice ofthearticles submitied with this Motion as Exhibits B-G, which demonstrate the typeofinformationcitizens can obtain from attorneyinvoices, For example, in Jnt Federation ofProf. & Tech. Eng’sv, Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 319,334, the Court relied on several articles that had been submitted bythe newspaper. As the Court explained there, these articles “used information conceming public employce salaries to illustrate claimed nepotism, favoritism, or financial mismanagementin state andlocal government,”and that “[\Jhese examples, even whenthey reveal no impropriety, amplyillustrate that disclosure of governmentsalary information serves a significant public interest,” id. Here too, whether the underlying information is true or not, the articles submitted reveal the valuable reporting that can he done with the information at issue in this case. CONCLUSION Forall of these reasons, the ACLU respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of Exhibits A-G, Respectfully submitted this 28th day ofMarch, 2016. ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. PeterJ. Eliasberg DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Jennifer [.. Brockett Rochelle L. Wileox Colin D, Wells DianaPalacios By: ahd loa / ctw Rochelle T,. Wileox Attomeys for RealParties in Interest ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA and ERIC PREVEN DECLARATION OF COLIN D. WELLS I, Colin D, Wells, declare: 1, Tam an attorneyadmitted to practice before all the courtsofthe State of California and before this Court. I am an attorneyat the lawfirm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (“DWT”), andoneofthe attorneysrepresentingPetitioners ACLU of Southern California and Eric Preven(collectively, “ACLU”). The matters stated below are true ofmyown personal knowledge. 2 Attached as Exhibit A to this declaration is a true and correct copy ofthe ‘Order Awarding Attorneys’ Feesin favorofPlaintiffDanielle Baez against Defendants Burbank Unified SchoolDistrict and Craig Jellison,entered on July 11, 2014inthe matter Baez v. Burbank Unified Sch. Dist, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC372092. 3. Attached as Exhibit B to this declarationis a true and correctcopy ofa September 25, 2012 newsarticle by Rex Daltonentitled “OC Families Face Fierce Fight for Special Ed Services,” publishedin the Voice ofOC, which was downloaded from the Internetat mydirection from the following website: http://voiccotoe.org/2012/09/oc- families-face-ficrce-fight-for-special-ed-services/. 4. Aitached as Exhibit C tothis declaration is a true and correct copy ofa September27, 2012 news article by Rex Daltonentitled “A ‘Brotherhood’ Fights Families Wanting Special Fd,” published in the Voice ofOC, which was downloaded from the Internetat mydirection fromthefollowing website: http://voiceolov.org/2012/09/a-brotherhood-fights-families-wanting-special-ed/. 5. Attached as Exhibit D to this declaration is a true and correct copy of an October 4, 2012 newsarticle by Rex Dalton entitled “Questions Surround Attorneys? Actions in Special Ed Case,” published in the Voice ofOC, which was downloaded from the Internet at mydirection from the following website: Attp://voiceofoc.org/2012/10/questions-surround-attomeys-actions-in-special-ed-case/. 6,» Attached as Exhibit E to this declaration is a true and correct copyofan October 2015 article by MatthewHeller entitled “Think Twice Before Suing This School District” published in California Lawyer, which was downloadedfrom theInternet at my direction fromthe following website:http://www. callawyer.com/2015/10/burbe unificd-school-district-lawsuit/. 7. Attached as Exhibit F to this declarationis a true and correct copy ofa January 23, 2014article by Allison Wisk entitled “Lawyerfees add up in records cases[:] Someagencies pay thousandsto handle information requests”published in Dallas News, which was downloaded from the Internetat mydirection from the following website: hitp://res.dallasnew mninteractives/records/records-costs.html, 8. Attached as Exhibit G to this declarationis a true and correct copyofan August22,2013 article by Katy Steinmetz entitled “Mediation Complete for San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, Details Still Confidential” published in Time, which was downloaded from the Internet at mydirection from the following website: http://swampland.time,com/2013/08/22/mediation-complete-for-san-diego-mayor-boh- filner-details-still-confidential/, 1 declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoingis true and correct andthat this declaration was executed on March 28, 2016, at SanFranei: », California. Colin D, Wells PROOF OF SERVICE 1, Elizabeth Wyatt, declare as follows: Tam employedin the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. Tam overthe age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, California 94111-6533, On March 28, 2016, I served the foregoing documentdescribedas: MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ACLU OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND ERIC PREVEN; DECLARATIONOF COLIN D. WELLS WITH EXHIBITS A-G ‘on the interested parties in this action as stated below: Timothy T.Coates, Esq. Barbara W. Ravitz, Esq. GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & RICHLAND, LLP 5900 Wilshire Bivd., 12" Floor Los Angeles, CA 90036 Mary C, Wickham, Esq. County Counsel RogerH. Granbo, Esq. Asst, County Counsel Jonathan MeCaverty, Esq. Dep. County Counsel 648 Kenneth HahnHall of Administration 500 West Temple Street LosAngeles, CA 90012-2713 PROOFOF SERVICE teoates@emsr.com bravitz@gmsr.com Phone: Fax; (310) 859-7811 (310) 276-5261 Attorneysfor Petitioners COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BOARD OFSUPERVISORSand ‘THE OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL jmecaverty@counsel,lacounty.gov Phone: Fax: (213) 974-1828 (213) 626-2105 Attomeys for Petitioners COUNTYOFIOS ANGELES BOARD OF SUPERVISORSand ‘THE OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL Hon,Carolyn B. Kuhl Presiding Judge Los Angeles Superior Court 111 North Hill Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Clerk ofthe Court Court of Appeai ofthe State of California Second Appellate District Ronald ReaganState Building 300 S. Spring Street 2nd Floor, North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90013 Frederick R. Bennett ill, Esq. Court Counsel Los Angeles Superior Court 1! North Hill Street, Room 546 Los Angeles, CA 90012 ACLUofSouthern California, et al. v. County ofLos Angeles, et al. Case No, BS145753, Superior Court of California, County ofLos Angeles County ofLos Angeles Board of Supervisors, et al. v. Superior Court ofThe Los Angeles Couny, RespondentandACLUofSouthern California, Real Parties in Interest Case No,2d Civ. No. B257230, Court ofAppealofthe State ofCalifornia, 2" Appellate Dist., Div. 3 ACLUofSouthern California, et al. v. County ofLos Angeles, et al. Case No. BS145753, Superior Court of California, County ofLos Angeles (BYMAIL) By placing a true copyof the foregoing document(s) in ascaled envelope addressed as set forth above, I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I'am readily familiarwith this Firm’s practice for collection and processing ofcorrespondence formailing. Underthat practice, the correspondence would be deposited with theUnited States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaidal SanFrancisco, Califomia, in the ordinary course ofbusiness. Tam aware that on motionofthe partyserved, service is presumedinvalid if postal cancellationdate or postage meterdate is more than one day aller date of deposit for mailing inaffidavit, Executed on March 28, 2016 at San Francisco, California. T declare under penalty ofperjury, under the laws ofthe State of California,that the foregoingis true and correct. Elizabeth Wyatt Print Name Signature PROOF OF SERVICE 2 || Baez and against Defendants Burbank Unified School Distriet and Craig Jellison asfollows: Victor L, George, tate Bar No. 110504 FILED 'ayneC, Smith, State Bar No. 12 SUPERIOR COURTOF CALIFORNIA LAW OFFICES OF VICTORL. aee 20355 HawthorneBlvd.First Floor Torrance, California 90503 MuL28 20H Telephone: (310) 698-0990 Jota, tive OfceClede Facsimile: (310) 698-0995 BY,eon E-Mail severorge@vgeorgelaw.com Attorneys for Plaintist DANIELLE BAEZ SUPERIORCOURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FORTHE COUNTYOF LOS ANGELES CASE NO, BC372092 [Assignedto the Hon, Mary Ann Murphy, Plaintiff, Department 25} NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES BURBANK UNIFIEDSC! DISTRICT, a business entity, forn unknown; CRAIG JELLISON, an individual; and DOES through 100, Complaint Filed: June2, 2007 Defendants, Trial Date: October 18, 2013 On July 11, 2014,in Department 25 of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the Honorable Judge Mary Ann Murphy awarded attorney's feesin favor of Plaintiff Danielle 1, $2,956,965.30 to attorneys Victor L. George, Wayne C. Smith and Bivis Tran of the Law Offices of Victor L. George;and, 2. $267,604.00 to NormanPineand Beverly Pineof the law offices of Pine & Pine, He NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD OF ATTORNEV S FEES EXHIBIT true andcorrect copyofthis Court’s Minute Order dated 07/11/14,awarding said. attorney's fees is attached as Exhibit 1, Dated: July 22, 2014 LAW OFFICES OF VICTOR L. GEORGE wie EhJeb TOR L. GEORGE WAYNE C. SMITH Attorney for Plaintiff, DANIELLE BAE: 2 NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES P I O t r e t e e a pate: 07/11/14 DEPY. 25 wonorasLE MARY ANN MURPHY supes|| C. GUERRERO DEPUTY CLERK HONORABLE NONE Deputy Sheri i rsiSUPERIOR COURA@E cauIFoRNIA, CouNTY off@os ANGELES w o e 2 % 1 0 g 0 8 < gi uJUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOI CHRISTINE KWON-CHANG BC372092 Paimff WAYNE C. SMITH (X) Couse) NORMAN PINE (X) DANIELLE BAEZ vs Defendan BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT coun NANCY DOUMANIAN (X) AL 270.6-O'DONNELL BY PLFT. 7/10/21 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: 1. PLAINTIFF, DANIBLLE BAZZ'S MOTTON FOR ATTORNEYS! 2, DEFENDANTS, BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CRAIG JELLISON'S MOTION TO STRIKE/TAK COSTS; 3. PLAINTIFF, DANIELLE 3AEZ'S MOTION TO STRIKE THE DECLARATION OF JAMES P, SCHRATZ FILED 1N SUPPORT OF DEFENDANYS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS! FEES; The Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro ‘tempore was previously signed and filed. Christine Kwon-Chang, CSR #12143 The matter is called for hearing. The Court order is as follows: 2 This action was filed on June 1, 2007 ard ha: been pending for more than seven years. Three trials have beer conducted comprising thirty-nine trial days. The second trial ended in a mistrial after five days of trial due to defense counsel's actions. The first trial, reversed on appeal, lasted sixteen days. MINUTES ENTERED07/11/14 COUNTY CLERK Page lof 6 DEPT. 25 “EXHIBIT 1 SUPERIOR cour®r CALIFORNIA, COUNTY Mos ANGELES pare: 07/21/14 DEPT. 25 BonoRABLE MARY ANN MURPHY jun6xl) C. GUERRERO DEPUTY CLERK RONORABLE 1 JUDGE PRO TEM ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR NONE Depuy Shell CHRISTINE KWON-CHANG Reponer BC372092 Pint © WAYNE C. SMITH (x) Counsel = NORMAN PINE (X) ;DANIELLE BASZ vs Defendant BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT coms! © NANCY DOUMANIAN (xX) AL, 170,6-O'DONNELL BY PLFT, 7/10/1 ° NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS The third trial lasted seventeen days. Eighty-three motions and twenty-nine ex parte applications were filed. Thirty-nine court appearances for hearings were necessary {not including conference calls) in addition to thirty-nine trial days One appeal and one writ were argued and decided. For the reasons stated on the record on dune 12, 2014, attorney's fees are awarded in favor of plaintif Danielle Baez and against defendants Burbank Unified School Discrict and Craig Jollison as follows: $267,604 to attorneys Norman Pine and Beverly Pine and $2,956,965.30 to attorneys Victor L. George, Wayne C, Smith and Elvis Tran. Defendant's declaration of Mr. Schratz did not contain an originai signiture of Mr. Schratz as required by C.C.P. section 2015.5. C.f,., C.C.P. section 128; Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (Umana} (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 1154, 1165. There is no provision for "electronic signitures" or electronic filings in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The original signiture of Mr. Schratz shall be filed by 7-15-14. hater: MINUTES ENTERED Page 2 of 6 DEPT, 25 o7/1i/14 COUNTY CLERK SUPERIOR COURM@F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY of@os ANGELES pate: 7/11/14 DEPT. 25 HONORABLE MARY ANN MURB! nupcl| C. GUERRERO DEPUTY CLERK BONORABLE JUDGE PRO TEM] ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR 1 NONE Depuy set] CRRISTINE KWON-CHANG Reporter | 8:30 am|BC372092 Pint WAYNE C. SMITH {X)} | Counsel NORMAN PINE (X) | DANIELLE BAEZ vs Defence BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT coms NANCY DOUMANIAN (X) AL 270,6-O'DONNELL BY PLFT. 7/10/1 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: The Court rules on the objections to the declarations as follows Goldberg declaration: Sustain as to events ina different Los Angeles Superior Court case in Department 16. Otherwise overruled. The objections to the following declarations are overruled: Elvis Tran, David de Rubertis, Beverly Pine, Norman Pine, Brian Panish, and Wayne smith) As to the Victor George Declaration, sustained as to paragraphs 19-21, otherwise overruled. As to the Schratz declaration, the legal authorities are properly included in a memorandum of points and authozites, not a declaration, However, the objections are overruled. The Court does not consider the inability to recover punitive damages against a public entity for any purpose 2. The motion is striken with prejudice. Defendant's prior motion was strixen for submission ® lof a twenty-three page oversize brief without .| |seeking or obtaining permission to file an oversize brief in violation of C.R.C. Rule ~ |3,1213(d), The instant resubmitted motion is also an W wu MINUTES ENTERED Page 30f 6 DEPT. 25 07/21/14 ~ COUNTY CLERKay a SUPERIOR COUR@DF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY Of@0s ANGELES | pate: 07/12/14 DEPT. 25 HONORABLE MARY ANN MURPHY supe] C. SUERRERO Demury CLERK owonante JUDGE FRO TEMG ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR - NONE Depuy Starit|] CHRISTINE XWON-CHANG Reports 8:30 am|BC272092 . Pani? = WAYNE C, SMITH (X) Couns] = NORMAN PINE (X)DANIELLE BAEZ vs Defendans BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT come! © NANCY DOUMANIAN (X}AL 170.6-O'DONNELL BY PLFT. 7/10/1 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: oversized brief, as denfendant has simply spaced most of the brief in violation of C.R.C. Rule 2.108(1). Had the brief been ox and a half spaced or double spaced as required by C.R.C.Rule 2.108{1), the brief would have been oversized. efendants were provided with one warning regarding he oversized brief for this moticn and one opportunity to refile the motion, See 3-24-14 minute order. ‘The Court ia not required to permit a third chance to file a motion after that party fails to heed the first warn: second cversized brief. Col 24¢ Cal. App. 4th 64,74. v. Hertz (2006) Counsel may not circumvent the page limitations of C.R.C. Rule 3.1113(d) by submitting a largely single spaced brief in violation of C.R.C. Rule | 3.1123(d) and 2,108(1). This is not an isolated incident. See orders dated 3-12-14 and 2-25-14. 3. The motion is denied for the reasons stated on on the record. MINUTES ENTERED Page 4 of 6 DEPT, 25 07/11/14 COUNTY CLERK SUPERIOR COURM@DFCALIFORNIA, COUNTY of@os ANGELES pate: 07/11/14 DEFT. 25 HONORABLE MARY ANN MURPHY sepos]| C. GUERRERO DEPUTYCLERK HONORAT suDGE #0 TEX ELECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR 7 NONE Depuy Sheet] CHRISTINE KWON-CHANG Reporer 8:30 amjBc372092 Paint? WAYNE C. SMITH (X) cosy NORMAN PINE (X) DAKIELLE BAEZ vs Defendant BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICTcouse NANCY DOUMANIAN {X) AL 170.6-O'DONNELL BY PLFT. 7/10/1 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I, the below-named Executive Officer/Clerk of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify that: 1 am not a party to the cause herein, and that on this date I served the minute order dated July 11, 2014 upon each’ party or counsel named below by placing the document for cellection and mailing so as te cause it co be deposited in the United States mail at the courthouse in Los Angeles, California, one copy of the original filed/entered herein in a separate sealed envelope to each address as shown below with the postage therecn fully prepaid, in accordance with standard court practices. Dated: July 21, 2014 Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk MAN ging, deputy clerk By: & MINUTES ENTERED Page Sof 6 DEPT. 25 07/11/14 COUNTY CLERK SUPERIOR cour@r CALIFORNIA, COUNTY o@os ANGELES j DATE: 07/21/14 suvae} C, GUERREROHONORABLE MARY ANN MURPHY HONORABLE 1 JUDGE PRO-TEAS NONE Deputy Sher bEPr. 25 | DEPUTY CLERK BLECTRONIC RECORDING MONITOR Reporer | BC372092 Phir Cousze 8:30 aw NORMAN PINE DANIELLE BAEZ vs BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AL Beferatan, Counsel 170.6-O'DONNELL BY PLPT, 7/10/1 NANCY DOUMANTAN, WAYN# C. SMITH (X) oO | bo ' NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Victor L. George, Esquire. Wayne C. Smith, Esquire Elvis Tran, #squire Law Offices of Victor 4. 120355 Hawthorne Blvd., iTorrance, CA 90503 George at Flocr Norman Pine, Require Beverly Pine, Esquire 14156 Magnolia Bivd., Suite 209 Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 Nancy P. Doumanian, Fsqui DCUMANIAN & ASSOCIATES 2626 Foothill Boulevard Suite 250 La Crescenta, CA 91214 6 of 6 DEPT. 25Page IMUTES ENTERED a7/1i/is couNTY CLERK B o e a a DANIELLE BAEZ v. BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOLDISTRICT, et LASC CASE NO, BC372092 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) dss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) Jam employed in the County ofLos Angeles, State of California. 1am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action, my business address is 20355 Hawthome Boulevard, First Floor, Torrance, CA 90503. GnJuly 22, 2014, I served the foregoing document(s) described as NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES,on theinterested party(ies) in this action byplacing: [X] atrue copy [1 the original Nancy P. Doumanian, Esq. Courtesy Copy to: DOUMANIAN & ASSOCIATES 2626 Foothill Blvd., Suite 250 Norman Pine, Fisq. La Crescenta, CA 91214 Beverly Pine, Esq Tel: (818) 248-4700 PINE & PINE Fax: (818) 248-4701 14156 Magnolia Boulevard, Suite 200 E-mail: nancy@doumanianiaw.com Sherman Oaks, California 91423 tami@idoumanianlaw.com Tel: (818) 379-9710 Attorneysfor Defendants Fax: (818) 379-9749 Burbauk Unified School District E-mail: npine@pineandpine.com and Craig Jellison [X]_ (BY MAIL, 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.) I deposited such envelope in the mail at Torrance, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereonfolly prepaid. I am “readily familiar” with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondenceformailing, Itis deposited with the U.S, postal service on that same dayin the ordinary course ofbusiness. I am aware hal on motion of 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, (1 (BY FACSIMILE)1 also faxed a copy of said document(s) to all parties where indicated to the fax number which is printed under each address on this Proof of Service. [1 (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I caused such document(s) to be detivered via overnight service by Norco Overnite Service. Executed on July 22, 2014,at Torrance, California. | declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State California that the aboveis true and correct. OC Families Face Pierce Fight for Special Ed Services| Voice of OC Page 1 of 6 HEALTH NEWS OC Families Face Fierce Fight for Special Ed Services By REX DALTON September 25, First ina three-partseries. Recpartstwo iow ieasaecscaltenlhy eummuritiogante seigeeoRbé-ies Boks wobtonsatz sia and three ut /vocefoscoedamnstee sety poner /atee éoctnbee-opse sepese In the aturan of2003 with apprehension renning high, Carlos, dv autistic ‘youngsterfroma broken home,arrived fortho secondgrade at Garden Grave's Cook ElementarySchool, Alexis Baquerian, Carlos’ aunt and otthe time bjs newly ained guardian, kmew the would face difficult challenges, Hut the realityof obtaining special educstion for her nephew was worse than even she imagines, HisFist leacherinappropriately labeled bim as “retarded,”saying he probably would neverbe able Wo odor subtract. The teacher's harshwords only wade Baquerizo work harder with Carlos’ home lessons. Before the end of that year, Carloshad won mathematics contests for his second grade class, besting ahout 20 students who didn't face hischallenges. “Today after yoats ofspecial services, a significant amount of which Baquerizo had to payfar out of her own pocket, Carlosexcels at college levelalgebra, But inslead of accolades, Baquerizo says she earned the ire of Garden Grove Unitiod SchoolDistrictofficials, whohve for a decade fought heratttapts to have all of the services,which ave requited waderstate and federal laws,to be paid for bythe district, ‘At one point, Baquertzo suid,she Tearned from (cachers that atop. ackonintstator reportedly threatened to bresk her financially and emotionally ta tive her ovt of GardenGrove so thedistrict wouldn't have to provide Carlos’ _speciaieducation services, The distric| donled theallegation,but [tas supported by some school staf inlegaltestimony. EXHIBIT B famities-face-fierce-fight-for-special-ed-services! 3/24/2016 httpri/voiceotoc.org/201209%0% ‘OC Families Face Fierce Fight for Special Ed Services | Voice of OC Page 2 of 6 ‘The result has heen a series of costly legalskirmishes imstate hearingsand federal courts that continue lo Uhis day. And Carlos’ case is just one of a mumber of instances where hard-line stances by Orange Counly’ schooldistricts have led to expensive conflicts with families of special-needs children. Garden Grove Unified officials dectined to disenss Carlos’ cosecitingprivacy sand legal restietions, which often keep such disputes out of the public ese. ‘The Rights and Costs of Special-Needs Children Under the federal Individuals with Disehilitios EducatignAct [FDEA| and state Jaw, districts are required to provide a free appropriate public education to youths with disabilities from birth to 21 sears of age, And though districts and {families are often at odds over whatassistance is needed, it ean inelude specialized insiruction; daily or weeklyspeech, occupational or psychological therapies; or special schools for those with severe emotionalissues. ‘The cost of providing these services can easily spiral, with districts spending lens of millions of dollars a year on special education, depending oo the umber of eligible students, District general funds are also tapped to augment stuleand federal dollars, which for yearshave not kept pace with needs. But even when taking these realities into account, special education experts say resistance to paying for services is so ingrained among school districts thetthey ‘ill spend hundreds of thousands oftaxpayer dollars onattorney fees — amounts that ia some cases dwarf the costs ofthe services sought — to denyoF not reimbutse fanilies for the educational news, And though special eshcation dispotes are commonthroughout California and the nation, family attorneys and special education advocates saydistrict legal resistance in Orange County is amongthefiercest in the country. “there is roomfor problemsolving and compromise” when distriets seeka balance, suid Irvine-hased Maureen Groves,a family attorney and founder of the California Association for Parent-Child Advocates. “When schooldistricts become obsessed with defendingtheir original instructional plans, discrediting families and keeping parents in the dark, disputes escalate, Schools and families suffer,” she said, Graves and other advocates saydistricts direct streams of funds lo « smuatl cadre of attorneys to fight families secking special education services, which vary from tests costing « few thousanddollars to individual class aides to residential placementin highly sophisticated, out-of-statefacilities. Additionally, some local districts,including Garden Grove Unifiehave refused to publicly disclose the costs, which an open-governmentexpert says is a violation ofstatelan. Given that Baquerizo estimates her legal pills over the past five years alone ‘were about $350,000, the distri’ ae likely far higher. The most recent battle ‘was over about $14,000in services annually and prior skirmishes have topped 850,000 in annuel cost. Carlos’caseis one ani example of this pervasive war of wills between families and districts, Others include: http://voiceofoc.org/2012/09/oc-families-face-fleree-fight-for-special-ed-services/ 3/24/2016 OC Families Face Fierce Fight for Special Ed Services Voice of OC + Los Alamitos Unified School District accumulated $783,000 ilegal bills asthe distriet fought to prevent a Spanish-speaking family from ‘videotaping a school education planning session so the mother could better understand discussions, district reconis show. + Orange Unified School Districtin June losta costly ease in federal court after it sued a family of an autistic childin an attempt to avoid poying for a private-schoo! program. The district sued in 2011 aflera state admivistrative heating decision approved the requested services,with the federal court noting the district repeatedly improperly developed an educational plan, On Aug,6a federaljudge ordered Orange Unified to pay {$159,000forthe services of Bruce Bothwell,the family’s Long Beach- based attorney. However, the district refuses to reveal how much itpaidits attorneys for the ease. There also s no record thatthe schooldistrict's ‘lected board publicly voted on filing the lawsuit, which authorities say is possibly a violation of state law. + ina Capistrano Unified School District case that ended earlier this year, the district was ordered lo pay $117,000of the family’s legalbls along ‘with $20,000 of reimbursementfor services. Butthe family was denied reimbursement for about $100,000in other services and more on unreimbursed legal fees. Cnpistrano Unified spent atleast $238,000for its altorney in the ease, according to records released bythe district. ‘Trustees Often in the Dark A Yoiee ofOC survey of Orange County eases fromtony enclaves to working- lass neighborhoods shows schooldistricts repeatedly follow such courses, often with little follow-up oversightby electedtrustees. Noting Orange County ceses prompt her attimes to “groan,” MaceyJK. ‘Tiflany, a Torrance-based attorney forfamilies, sald: “Districts always push back there, Attimes, you seralch your head and wonderif there is unyadult supervision.” Superintendents appear to tryto "save fae,”she added, by using district funds ‘orlegal fees to "Wefead theie zeputations.” ‘Mare Eeker, superintendent of the Fountain Valley Unified School District, complained in aninterviewthat families with disabled children tse the federal Taye "to holdthe districts hostage" to win services, ‘When questions are raised about school district stances on special education, ‘Eckerhas said in interviews: *No good deed goes unpunished.” ‘Such comments promptfamilies and even some schooltrustees fo note thatthe resistance is similar to objectionsto racially integrate American schools. Indeed, Los .Alamitas Unified in the videotape ease hired an Atlanta law firm that touted aiding too sehooldistiets in civil rights battles, Among those who recognized the correlation was Ginny Fay Aitkens,a trustee at Saddleback Valley Unified School District in Mission Viejo, “T understand where the parents are comingfrom.” Aithens said.“It would be fabulons ifthe system was not so confrontational. This dues need a solution.” hittp:/voiceofie.org/2012/09/oc-families-face-fierce-fight-for-special-ed-services! Page 3 of 6 3/24/2016 OC Families Face Fierce Fight for SpecialEd Services ‘ Voice of OC Page 4 of 6 George West, presidentof the Garden Grove Unified board and dean of edueation at the Christian Hope International University in Fullerton,took issue with Ecker's comment. “T would never use the term ‘holding the district hostage” West suid. "Parents ‘antthe verybest, and we wantthedistrict to do the best. But we don't ahways agtoe with what the process should be.” ‘The issue could come into playina lawsuit fled earlier this yearin U.S, District Court in Sacramento, Parent associations sued the California Departmentof Edueationforallegedly ‘turing a blind eye to what they see as widespread school disLcict violations of state and federal lawfor froe and appropriate education, Discrimination against minority groups alsois alleged. Stateofficials declined comment, but they denied such allegationsin court flings, ‘When Koni Sagy, the San Francisco-based lead attomey forthe families, heard descriptionsofOrange County events, she said“Is worse than T thought.” She plansto review Orange County cases. Superintendents and school board trustees continue to point totheir inercasingly tight budgets to explaintheir confrontationalattitude for access to special education serviees. For idstance, Garden Grove Unifiedofficals saydirec casts for 5,015 special educationstudents was $62.6 millionfor the 2010-11 schoolyear. Special exducaionexpenditures inladed nearly$13 milion in general funds from an overall budgetof$438 milion, officials seded. State reports show [hat nine ofthe county's 28 school districts — 143 statewide are focing financial insolvency. These include Garden Grove and Capistrano Unified. InSaddleback Valley,officials saythe district last school year had 3,955 special education students with direel eusls budgeted at $46 million, of which $15 rllon was fromdistrict generalfunds. Desperate for funds, Saddleback Valley Irustee Ginny Foy Aitkins has proposed a tax increase, “I got stone silence,” she said. “It all boils down to special education becoming a ludicrously expensive proposition.” While district trustees can’t avwid overall budget issues,interviews show lected officials often knowlittle about the legal expenditures lofight families seeking services, In Garden Grove Unified, West, the board president, said he eould not recall anyreport on legal eusly of Carlos’ ease in his four years asa trustee, Neither could two other trustees sho served during the last two years. ‘Canlas' case only grabbed the board’s attention last December, whena groupof Parents caveto a meeting to complain. High iced Lawyers, Possible Brown Act Violations http://voiceofoc.org/20] 2/09/oc-families-face-fierce-fight-for-special-ed-services! 3/24/2016 OCFamilies Face Fierce Fight for Special Ed Services | Voice ofOC Page5 of6 Legally, a public agency likea school board may diseus lawsuil strategy and decisionsin closed session, butstate Jaw requires a board to approve a lawsuit, with that action being recorded in publicly available mecting board minutes, ‘There are no public minutes rellecting Orange Unified's lawsuit against the autistic boy, known only as CK,in court documents, said an attorneyfor the school board. Orange Unified hoard President TimothyL. Surridge refused to comment. Inthe Los Alamitos Unified videotapingease,the district engaged Charles &, ‘Weatherly Sr.an Atlanta atlorney known nationallyfor high billings. For 2006,district revords show he billed the schooldistri$585,000. When an Orange Comnty legal Brm's costs were addedin, records show the totalbilled in the end last year hit $783,000. Los Alumitos’ trustees were informed of the risinglegalcosts, recalled board Prosident Meg Cutuli, who served duringthe litigation. “Te was a very difficult decision togo forveard,” she said, hinting the family had ‘otherissues she couldn't discuss forlegal reasons. “I hate to say we won, as we did in federal court. Is ita true vietory?” With her district seeking a better “working philosophy” for such cases, Cutuli soid,she“is really bothered”thatthe federal yoversienhas never pata the fil amountit promised, therebysaddling districts with casts, In Saddleback Valley, Ailkins said that duringthe last school yeerthis, ‘translated loa dozeninstances where the district squared off ina state administrative hearing against a familyover special services, “There were settlementsin cight eases before a hearing. Three wentlo hearings where the distet won. Inthe fourth both sides prevailed on aspects ofthe dispute, shesaid. Attorneys representing families point to suchhearings as an example of divisive stances by the school distriets, Rach case produceslegalbills for the school district. Families are foreed to foot their own legal tab, ofienwithout a chanee of recovery. Poita A. Cernius, a parentin the Newport-Mesa Unified Schoo! District,said her decades-long fightfor services for her now 17-year-old autistic son tenght hera telling lesson. “It all depends onwhois atthe top,” said Cernius. “He or she setsthe tone, Someofficials in change of special edueation have heen evil, others good.” ‘Whenher son vas 3, the district attempted to avoid paying for special education, blaming his developmental issues on a brain tumor the child had survived, Ima legal fight,she said, she and her husband, hoth corporate attorneys, uncovered school distret documents showing specialists had attributed his educational handicaps to autism. ‘The familywonthe servives it wns secking, butitcast them about $30,000 in legal fees. htip://voiceofoc.org/2012/09/oc-families-face-fierce-fight-for-special-ed-services/ 3/24/2016 OC Families FacePierce Fight for Special Ed Services | Voice ofOC Page6 of6 “We understand there are limited fimnds forthese types of kids,” Cernius said. “Botthe district was wasting money'by fighting and not talking, We always have been willing to share inthe cost, But they would take a hard-line approach, slam you, stonewall you, and lie andcheat, hoping you'd break down.’ Newport-Mesa officials did not return repeated cals for comment, A.Need to Speak Out Because families with active legal cases still have childeenin the distriets, many declined interviews, “Pople are gun-shy,” said Cernins, “They are afraid ofbeing stomped on by the district.” Even some attorneys declined interviews,fearful ofjudicialattacks. Taquerizo, however,said she opled Wo speak to show other families how services have helped Carlos, The family and district have beenthrough a bewildering arrayof proceedings,fromfive state administrative hearings to ‘multiple federal court cases. Last October, the familywona vital legal batile when Garden Grove Unified attorneys unsuccessfully appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court In that ease, the U.S. Ninth Circuit CourtofAppeals in San Francisco ruled Gatden Grove Unified had to roiniburse the family for services al a nonpublic facility. ‘The earlier, precedent-selting decision means students throughout Califoruia andeightother Westernstates should haveeasier wows to certain private programs. ‘Yel Garden Grove Unified continues ta fight over reimbursement for nonpublic services Carlos received in other years In ely, the district prevailed ina state administrative henting, with an administrative judge reecting reimbursementfor such services. Baquerizo again went tofederal court Garden Grove Unified is tyingto force Carlos intoa schoo! program thefamily says is inappropriate and more costly.Theclasses have students with more severe disabilities, they say, and casts are 842,000 yoar, three times the cost ofthe program he isaitending, “Its insane,” said Baquetizo. “All this because of Carlos’ desire toTear.” Please eontact Rex Dalton directly at cexdalton@aok.cam aitesessatondont som) http://voiccotoe.org/2012/09/oc-families-face-ficrce-fight-for-special-ed-scrvices! 3/24/2016 A ‘Bratherhood’ Fights Families Wanting Special Bd | Voice ofOC Page | of 5 HEALTH NEWS, A ‘Brotherhood’ Fights Families Wanting Special Ed usenayn-onsoghtSin ont eredet teres here Map iActeatbespaiwntnidefonnty govemmzntiettle Gonbulea-osse2e2tbe. Entering federalcourt in 2008 tofightfor spectal edcation for her nuistic nephew, Alexis Baqueriza know she wasfacing an entrenched, deep-pocketed foe,the Garden Grove Unitied SchoolDistrict. Silshewas stunned to earn fn 2010 Ukatevery public school district in ‘Orange County had aligned agains them,using laxpayer money to oppose Carlos, ‘An abscare but powerfik publio agency agreed topay attoruey’fees in part and deploy its consideruble puliteal lout to help Gorden Grove Unified, which had fought Baquerizo since 2003. “The agency is the Orange County Special HducutionAlliance,so Fite known that even some schoo! disiriet trustees had never heard of it, [Lisa joint powers thority similar to a water ora fre prolestion district. ‘Batthe alliance takes things a step further,according to interviews and documents I fights facillessecking special eucationservices understate and ederal laws, Such an agency is so raze thatstatethat national leaders in the special education field suid San Diego isthe only place with a simitor ‘organization, San Diago's, they sid, is farless active, “7a never heard the uame,” said Baquetizo, recalling when herattorneytold herthealliance chipped in $19,000 to help Garden Grove appeal a federal Tasenuit Canfas was winning, ‘The alliance was branded “a stusis fund io batter kids” byBrian Allen child advocate who has practice in Orange Counly for more than a desade. Hes fomiong those who have alleged the alliance violated Ue state's open meetings law, Mare Deker, longtime superintendent ofthe Fountain Valley Untied Schoo! District who chairs the alliance, id the organizatirs has notviolated any laws ‘and generally denies allegations like the one leveled by Allen, EXHIBIT C https/voiceofoc.org/2032/09/a-brotherhood-fights-families-wanting-special-ed 3/24/2016 A ‘Brotherhood’ Fights Families Wanting Special Ed | Voice ofOC Page 2 of 5 ‘A Bratherhood! Formed bysuperintendents ofthe county’s 28 school distrits, the aliance _re¥ from deep resistance tothe federal Individualswith Disabilities Education Act, which is intended to help students with various developmental handicaps receive free and appropriate public education. Because the federal goverment never lived up to its original goal for funding special education, schoo!districts became increasingly alarmed asthey spent ‘more general fund dollars to meet growing fiunily requests forassistance. ‘When launching the alliance in 2005, one superintendent in a Los Angeles ‘Times artilecalled the alliance “a brotherhood.” Another superintendent claimedthey were “getting clobbered” by families, who felt school districts were like a “goose laying the golden ege”tobe lapped at will, ‘Today, Boker describes the agency's goals as aiding disteiets with legecosts, professional devolopmenttraining fordistrict stafls and lobbying of state and {eeralofficials either for more money’ ot changes ilaw, An particular, the lobbying efforts are for “relieving districts of onerous requirements for cerving childcen with spectal education needs,"said Beker. ‘The alliance also uses top-notch professionals totrain community advisory commiltees, hich are required by slate law to reduce strife betweenschool district officias and famities, ‘But even this aspect ofthe alliance's mission has generated contraversy. ‘Whilethese committees can and do provide some assistance, interviews show they also can struggle o meet the challenge. Their memberships can be politiciaed, for instance, bythose appointed, who then pay lip service to resolution efforts, say families, For example,a trustee praised the committee in the Newport-Mesa Unified ‘School District as substantiallyeffective, but Poita A. Cernius,a parent who has dealt with the committee for 14 years, called it "a squawk box for distcict administrators.” ‘Newport-Mesa Unified’s committee didn’t respondtointerviewrequests. How theAlliance Operates ‘The alliance meets infrequently and irregularlyatthe Orange County Department of Edueation building in Costa Mesa, For a quorum, it needs but three superintendents from the 28 districts, whoare joined by schooldistrict defense attorneys and other school officials. Ronald D, Wenkart, general counsel for the county education department, and Lysa M,Saltzman, an atlorneyin Wenkart’s office, have aided the alliance. As staffthe alliance funds a single consultant, thoofficials said keeps some of the ‘organization's recordsat her botoe. intp://voiceofac.org/2012/09/3-brotherhood-fights-fimilies-wanting-spectal-ed/ 37242016 A ‘Brotherhood’ Fights Families Wanting Special Ed | Voice of OC Page 3 of 5 Tach Orange County school district typically is assessed 20 and go cents per student per year to fundthe alliance’s operations. The annual assessment, however, isn't always levied, This year thealliance has approximately $425,000 ‘on hand, aceording to documents. Initseffort,thealliance helps districts fight families with children with issues ‘hat include developmental disorders like autism, traumatic brain injuries and disabled foster children being aided by guardians, In any given year, the alliance mnight by belping defend against up to five lawsuits. ‘The laxgast single category in the alliance's annual budgetis for tigation support fordistricts, budgeted this yearforatleast $75,000. The agency's Jobbsist casts $12,000.Thealliance projects expenditures of $200,000in 2012. In every case, reports show, the alliance took a position against a family rather thansupporting one. Beyonditsefforts Iocally, thealliance has soughttoaid the filing friend-of-the- court or amicus curiaebriefs with the U.S, oth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.It specifically selects cases that migh| win precedent-setting ralings infavor of school districts. Amongthe eases the alliance has joined are: + Im 2010, recorils show the Alliance paid halfof Brea Olinda Unified Schoo! District's $22,000in Tegal bills when it successfully sued a family in US. District Court Santa Ana to overturn a state administrative hearing, decision continuing their child’s special education, The family wanted to ensure that the child was protecteil to continue to receive services like coecnpational therapy fur is attention deficit disorder issues, but the district objected. The ease was eventually setlJed privately. + In2009,the alliance contributed $5,000 to ajoint elfort by Newport-Mesa Unified and the county Department of Education to avoid paying to place a fosterchildin anexpensive, out-of-state specialized facility. Under California Taw, the distriet wherea familyresidestypically would be responsible forthe service, which could run to$100,000 2 year. But [Nesport-Mesa and the county fought overthe legs] definition af who was ‘the “responsible adult” in an effort to shifl Use cost of care to thestate, + In qn impartant appellate docision, the aliance contributed § ‘2007 to Saddleback Valley Unified Schoo! Distriet fora case that limited. howmuchfamilies can collectfor attorney fees when theyaccept certain settlementoffers. 22,500in "icreally screws parents over,” said Bonnie 7, Yates, a Los Angeles atlorucy ‘who represented a family seeking about $24,000 forattorney fees, Questions of law on complex issues involving such settlement offers remain undecided,she said, Butalliance and school district officials far beyond Mission Viejo were happy, because the ease put them in. steongor position during settlemen! discussions held before a state administrative hearing is convened. hutp://veiceofoe.org/2012/09/a-brotherhood-fights-familics-wanting-special-ed/ 3/24/2016 A ‘Brotherhood’Fights Families Wanting Special Ed | Voice ofOC Page 4 of5 ‘Thealliance review committee, which decides what eases the organization takes up,includes 8, Daniel Hathottle, a Casta Mesa attorney who represents school districts in some of the cases the alliance supports, Harbotte’s lawgroup represents at least ninedistrictsin the county. But how much his group is paid isn't known, because Harbottle and a county education department attorneyhave advised school districts thatthey need not slose payments, even years after individual legal actions were completed. ‘Terry Francke, one ofCalifornia's preeminent experts regarding public records and Voice of OC's open-government consultan|, says such costs should be disclosed. ‘Harbottle dectined to respond lo interview requests. "hey Threw Me Out’ ‘Trustees from variousschool boards, miticularly those elected in recent years, often are unaware [hat the alliauce exists or thatdistriets are fundingit. ‘WheVoiee of OCdescribed the alliance to Bao Nguyen, a Garden Grove ‘trustee appointed in Jane govt, he said, "That doesn't sound right.” Nguyen, who is running for election in November,expressed concern about the issue but stopped responding tointerview requests. That stanceis naw taken by other Garden Grove trustees and those frouother distriets thatare represented! by Harbottle, Katrina Foley, a former Costa Mesa city couneitwomon elected to the Newporl- ‘Mesa board in 2010,also was unaware ofthealliance until Interviewed, ‘When asked how much herdistrict pays tothe allianee, Foley said, “I'm taking notes to ask” Initially, Foley and Newport-Mesa staff participated ininterviews and provided information, But then sheand other administrators, indading district spokeswoman Laum Bush, refused to respond, Marbottle represents Newport Mesa, Inits early years, thealliance was accused of violating state open meeting laws during its legal strategysessions, accondingto interviews and agency minutes, Frequent complaints sere made byRonald Lackey, a Dana Point edueational psychologist, formerschooladministrator, and child advocate who was active foryears in efforts to resolve conflicts between distrets and families, “He looked at our effort as an Megal uel,” revalled Fcker. “He said we were collaborating in a conspiracy against children with handicapped needs; that our effort was to circumwentthe law, He couldn't understand where we were coming from; he opposed all we did.” Lackeycouldn't be reached, but Allen, his former partnerin child advocacy, confirmed 1ackey’s actions, Allianee minutes reflect Lacey's continued objections at various meetings.Attorneys like Tania 1. Whiteleatherof Lakewood recalled how Lackey battled the alliancefor years. Allen said Lackey believed "the alliance was having secret meetings.” Alliance http://voiceofoc.org/2012/09/a-brotherhood-fights-families-wanting-special-ed/ 3/24/2016 A ‘Brotherhood Fights Families Wanting Special Kd | Voige ofOC Page 5 of 5 _minutes show its leaders ignored Lackey. At same time, Lackey also complained at Capistrano Unified School District ‘meetings about its teatmentof special education children, Capistrano Unified ‘was the ideological erucible from which the alliance was born, according to boththe alliance and schooldistricts. “Thus Lackey’ objeetions roganding specialeducation served as the catalyst for school hoord actions thateventually led to controversies that consumed the district for several years. The Orange County distrit attorney's office probed alleged ilogal mectings, trustee recalls andthe departureofJames Fleming, then superintendentofthe district and eroditod by alliance officials with creating the organization, ‘Whiteleather, who represents families seeking spectil education from districts, said thatat Deast five years ago she was kiokedoutofanalliance meetingafter alleging that board members were violating the state's open mctiags tw hy including lawyers in the discussion of a ease in whichthey had nodirest involvement Whiteleather said, "They threw ine out”and continued their discussion behind elosed doors, Please contact RexDaltondirectly at rexdalton@aolcom foetneadlton hittp://voiceofor.org/2012/09/a-brotherhood-fights-families-wanting-special-ed’ 3/24/2016 Questions SurroundAttorneys" Actious in Special Ed Case| Voice ofOC Jord COUNTY GOVERNMENT Questions SurroundAttorneys’ Actions in Special Ed Case ‘By REX DALTON October 4 ird in a three-part series, Here are ports one sectulartists Mwiie ee aesyy estatepaneo Luthier nail eommieterile qb nasgeoSbs. ses. nahhogsatehonl ‘Toavoid paying for specialeducation services fora teenagerwith autism, records show Garden Grave Unitied School Disteiet attorneys may bave ‘engaged in an unethieu! scheme lo swoythe U.S. Ninth Cireuit Coustof Appeals. ‘Documents show the logal manevver last year involved an apparentattempt to ) ‘With its defense theory essentially guted, Burbank Unified might have considered settlement Overthe course ofthe tigation, in foc. the partes panicipated in vofullday sessions with mediators and in ve mandatory settlement conferenceswith 3 judge. But nane of those effortsproved ‘uli. At the Burbank Unfled board meetingIn AUgUs2014, Lary Applebaurt rade zn obliquereference to whythe casepersisted. “When [= settlement] demands beyond outragacus, you have todo somerhingta protect the taxpayers’ lars,” hesa Detense attorney George worite'scuss specie ofeelsement negotiationsbut hesaysthat hehad! made a specic demand, The expectation ‘woulbe the other side would make some gand faith counteroffer. Ifthat doesnt take place,whistare you gong todo” ‘Thedistrict's resistance mayaso reLectan understandable reluctance to adi liabilityin case implicating ts tp personnel Baers accusation thatjelson had sexually assaulted her, says George, asa very bad allegationtoward ahigh ranking memberof upper management ofthe dietiet? Fora schoo!district, adds defense attorney Shift, “There's veputatlonalnjury ta consider with this sort of seIndwidua officialsaccused of ‘wrongdoing, he says, may eel equally offended” Plainifs attorneys contend some schooldstits have beenknown to sanction excessive, nothlds-barredItigation even wien thelr lablltyis clear. When Becky Romano. high school assistant princi, clalmed she was forced outof herjob ater suffering a worerelatedInjury, Alen Ball of Ball & Yorke in Venturafied what he thoughewasa routine wrangfu! terminationlawsul. (Romano v. Oxnard Unio High ch Os, No, ‘c1v288657 (entra Super.CC, fled an. 19, 20061) http:/www.callawyer.com/2015/10/burbank-unified-school-district-lawsuil/ 3/24/2016 Think Twice Before Suing This School District - California Lawyer Page5 of6 “There was neverany real queston there was going co be @ verdct on tehalf of Ms, Romana, Balavers. He says he made an inal offer to settle the case for$75,000, But che Oxnard Union High School District fought him tothe “ch degree. he says fling @blszard of discovery motions. ARer wo years of tigation ard witha tia lorning, the distrsettled chedm for $180,400, The Venuura Star laterdiscovered through California PublRecords Actrequest chat deense counsel Oenris), Walsh had biled the school stl: S832.123in fes and costs “tesnot an effective use of taxpayers! maney when you spend $532,000 on a case that setted for $180,000," Bll ays Manly cltes one of his casesInvohng 2 gil with speci’ needs wo wasmolested by 2 school bus driver. Among other Indlcatlansof Hlablity against the Loo Unified SchoolDistr, he saysscheolofficals had testified they znew the driverhad a primsdemesnar carwlcton for havi exwith a prosllute The distriet, however, contested theclam righ trough the abilityphase ofa jury tra, aterlosing that wert Itsetlled or $4.75 illon—one ofthe largest payouts ofits kndIn Califo. {ona Cv LoiUlfSch, Dist, No, 36-2011-0026749San Joaqulh Super. Ck fled Aug. 8, 20111) ‘The Baez retras gatunderway in Cetaber 2013, with alge Murphy presiding, Sut)ust a week later, ontheAth dayofeal, she declared w mitral Sue to defense misconduct. Murphy cited vepesed refe-ences In Doumarian’s openingstatemer 1o Baez being iestigatedfor“Selous misconduct” om the eb, even thoughche Court of Appea: had led the Bradleyafar offnits. lca,chejurywaene suppased to know therehad beena previous tla. But Douranlan broughtinto coura cart ofwhe exhiblc binderslabeled "Trial Testimony” which she placed facing the uy. "fl had 2 tape measure,‘ would say Ie wasless than fivefeet from ane end of the ury box” Murphy said, “its about the imgrity ofthe court’ order. about the factthat counsel stl doesnt chink she has valated anyof che ardersIn argulag this motion, and ln eel, she and her witness have violatedthe order. fist wleness out of the bexin ths trial. This is unacceptable ‘Murahy ordered jury selectionfora third trial to begin the nextday, denying Doumantais requestfora hiatus. The eighl duration was estmated atfve day forte planes case antwo days forthe defense, but theciel dragaed anfor tree week. “There was. constant request for sebars,where Nancy would (lst, Your Honor, theyve opened the door [to evidence aboutiveBradleyafaittheyve openedthe door; smirecall,ge Murphy would sy, "They didnt, and that door wil stayshut Finallyin Novernber 2013, the jury found for Baez of the hastle-wanenvironment aim, awarding her $29,308 forpest ecanomic loss and 100,000 forphysical pein and mentalsuffering. Ialo found thalJlson had net ouched Baez witthe Inteneto harm and offend her on jaly 26, 2006, butdd cause her emotional distr2ss. ‘The reltvely low amord appeared to viwicate the &'svicts strategy, ard ic didnt give the paintifs lawyers rruch to celebrate. In contingency fees, George and Smith were ooking ata meager relurnfor thousariés of hours of aber, BUE FES hasthot kcker The statute allows the court, “nits wsctetlon,” to award “reasonable atternay's feesancoststo te prevailingpty. (Cal, Govt Code 12965(b}) Inthe' motionfor Fees, George ard Stith calculated 2 lodestar figureof mere than $1.6 rmilkon, based on 2.612 haus of work, That sur, they arguee, should be enhanced bya “I don’t want the cout to presume Iy mysslence that Lagree with any mulepler af toto compensate them forthe risk of taking hecase. "Plan managed 10 of che contments about malsconduct prevail in chls action against both thelarge Burbank Unified Schon! District and Ms or rule violation” oumenian,” they sal, compar'ng the case tos "David versus Goiach” struggle ‘They arched ta thelr motion a declarationfrom: Nathan Goldberg, @ partner at Aired, Maroko 2 Gcidoerg in tos Angeleswho earier had faced Douranian ina hostlework-eewironmenc case brougtit by ls lent &lzabeth Pap, against he former supervisoratthe Pasadena Area Community Colege Dist Los Angeles County Superiar Court Judge Rta Mllergranted Pop & new ta admarishing Doumanlan for making misrepresentationscflow and evidrice during Closing aegument that resulted ina miscarriage ofustce* Among other things, Qoumanlan hae! old thejury, “Youcancoteven amar (the plaints] 3 daarout of sympathy. I you award one dollar tothe plaints, they gc to collet all af thelr attorneyfees” ‘Aner Pop prevalled In the rtal, the court awarded Goldberg $950.00 fees and costs, Nancy Doumanlan took a scurched-earth approach ‘on behalf ofherclintanc was unu/ling to engageIr any serous effort to resalve the case."he wroteIn his Baer declarationadding thac his ‘experience fnigaing against her was tersibly frstraeng ang csheareenig.* ‘Soumanlandd not respardl ta several requests for an interview: ‘As the hearing on Baez’fees motion got underway in July 20:4 Judge Murphysald This) case hasInvolved someof the mast brutal, hard fought tigation | have ever seen in any care, employmentaathena, We have public ently handed by taxpayer dollars, thetaxpayersofthe Cy of Gurbank, and fer whatever reason, tne Burbank Unified SchoolDistrict has eeclded,an elected or appintedoil, to etal MS. DDournanian's aw frm, and the tigation has been replete with rule violations necessitatingextra time and work ontheplants side, and certainlyonthu court,” Doumenian's defense, Murphy obse-ved, nas not always cricket Te ludge elaborated: °Mary aspects ofthe defense, particularly the rule valatiors and filag documents, voluminous documents anthe day ofthe hearing and having the cout. putaverand recansider motionssit «ould considerlate filed documents. drove up thecost of ligatingtne caseonthe plains side. http://wwwcallawyer.conv/2015/10/burbunk-uni fied-school-district-lawsuit/ 3/24/2016 Think TwiceBefore Suing This School District - California !awyer Page 6 of 6 ‘Then the judge added a personalnote. "The one shing that strure me inthe til that remember to this ay, ithe superintendentof the ‘Surbank Unified Schaal Distrce—!think she was a PrO—alling ext o Ms. Doumanianana chey were bath ‘ooking aver a€ Ms, ezlaughing at her with @ mocking manner, and calted that out. That's noted lathe transcript Sothis Is comingfromm the top ofthe schoo! dsc, They have seen how ther litigation [s Belnghandled, Laughingatthe plein 2 mockingway withthe defense attorney" ‘Murphy concluded, Exeeforthe ethlcetfsues and the rule lations which fm going to put overto one sa, tne dletrict il perfecly entitlero ligae that way, perfectetited to, But when thay da and they osethey are gaing to have to pay forthe plaints frm that ‘decides they ate gong to meet them every me...and are nat goingto roll ever” wrththat she ordered Burbank Unified to pay Georgeand Smith's frm $2,986 0004 haa agreed to lake @ 10percenthelrcut onl orginal request and ta sppellate attorney Pine ancther $260,508, Doummarian's assertionthat the attorneys Feesshould bereduced becausethe defencant isa public entity, Murphy sald, "snot vel taken; noting tha the lstricc-nas ar iimited warchest” In perhaps her mest polnced comments, Murphy speculated about the schoo! boards motivation forts defensestrategy. A"takeno-prisonersapproach,” she sal, might make ® prance scene hard for plaints to attemptlo vindicate rights and possibly havie a chiling effecron ary fhe eerse atoning employeesthat wanted to sve the distri, You knaw, We will make you Ilgatefor seven * 5 ‘years, We wil light you on the land, an the sea, andin the a't’™ For herpart, Bourmanian was uncharacteristia'y subdued at the hearing. “I dant an. the courcta presume bymy silence tht | agree withary of the comments abnutmiseonductor rule violation” she saat the hearing. “The record speaks for self” ‘She denied expressing any dsrespecttoward ine panes nthe courtroom,"dispute your commenting that Or. St, an educator, was aughire {at Ms, Baez, because she wast" Doumaniantls Judge Mu-phy. [and she added, “Sre, lean concede some of my pleadingsdidn? have tabs and page lines, But I hopethe justicesabot justkeand nt about Complying with what ive Cour of Appeal has notedis hypertechrcates. ‘Then Doumanisn 54, without irony “I don't belle chere was anything dific't or complicated about this case, and your reference tomy putting lor an aggressive defense, | had no probiere with Judge O'Donnel! Inthe frst (ra... Pas a ferent experlenceInthe retra before Your Honor, bout naching, about tae experience makes iLaeoraplex or aificule case 50 I dot thinkthe application of [fe]mulasa ll approprisge” [About @ month later atthe school boatmeeting. Arpleiasrn made his comment aboutthetrie not wancing to meke This" a “regular thing” He told the Suréonk Leader thae che board appealed thecase to protect taxpayers. "This board hasrotlost our mind and we hve infact exercised common sense ancl prusence.” he sad. 3eca.ce the decision had ea be made behind ciosed doors, Applebaum added, "the community has to either trustthe people hey elect... ov vote us out” While his candor was unsua.plaitif anyers cantend the dsrcesatttude lant a surprise. “The biggestproblem with school strict tigaron Is.thereis no embudsman no personclose cathe case who can keep an eye an aw the deferdant s spencigtaxpayers’ money," Allen Ball argues. Board members, he stresses, miake decislonsbased on recommendations ofrisk management and the defense attrney The risk manager daesi't wantto adil any wrongdoing.” ‘At the end ofthe day, Manly adds, a protracted defense strategy “hasn't provento be effective, Quite the cortrany— ltofthese casescould have beensete for far less money early on if theyjust heen reasonable” burbens Unifiedrrearwhvle, cantnues to ;nvest nthe Bee ase, The appellaes opening bref by Doumanian and atiorneys 3t Greines Martin Includes arguments that evidence of Baez's ma‘talprablems—including her dva-ce peliton--could have been admitted on the issue of damages without teferencg heraffair with Bradley, And It contends the trialcourt commited fordamentalerrorby admicting int evidence—and permitting plants counsel to reed sloud tothejry—ivertigatar Sandha's corclislon thatshe Veieved! ‘the conduct that took placeIn the room more closely comport WithMs, i9e7s version ofthe events than Mr. Jellson.” ‘The tone ofthe briethough, is relaCuuty dry Evidence of the plaintiffs marital dicts, the appeliate attorneys state, "was obviously highly probative and rect! relevant to one ofthe centralsles ir the case—the Impact ofelsoriscorducton her emotional state" There are no ‘heto*eal fourizes. Arid ro mention of aryone belig caught wlth bier parts donn, Aversionofthis ote eppears tn the October 2015 arintseue of Caforna Lawyeres hick TwiceBeforeSuing his Schoo Osta. * Motbew Hele Is 0 Los Angeles-basedfrelonce miter hitp://www.catlawyer.com/2015/1 O/burbank-unified-school-district-lawsuit’ 3/24/2016 A look at open government Tegal fees Page | of $ =Menu On the Record. Public Information in North Texas Lawyer fees add up in records cases Some agencies pay thousands to handle information requests Published on J ry 23, 2014 ByAllison Wisk (mailto:awisk@dallasnews.com)| Staff Writer took at ul Governmententities without in-Héusé'¢6tinsel must hire private attorneys to handle legal matteté'iiditiding some requests for public: : isl aeopo0information. a ae 25% Ayoveranent’s {npaciraateechodpioyseharecienere 9p a ies respond to.6 guizies, with ying,Manyagencies re pond en records in ju nies withoutpaying aM.muncais:sepia attorney to do it for them, ‘seelsnglegal guidance only when necessary.Sefeingene atemeoe. But documents received by The Dallas Morning News reveal that several North Texas agencies pay thousandsofdollars to outside counsel to handle public information requests with regularity, In responseto open records requests sent by Ze News, several governmentagencies EXHIBIT F hitp:/res.dallasnews,com/interactivesitecords‘records-costs.html 3724/2016 Alook at open government legal fees Page 2 of5 readily producedlegalbills, Approximate fees paid to private while others sought rulings from firmsto handle public informationi * the attorney general to prevent reduests not release of whole invoices 1__ Addison $46,129 showing public expenditures on 2_ McKinney $44,877 such fees. Some attorneys were 3__ Plano |SD $43,006 unableto specify how many 2. eaten? [30 5 $33,039 hoursbilled were spent on 5. power Moun $26,824 ee ‘, 2 6 Coppell ISD $27,732public information queries. eee sees ; 8 Highland Vilage 517.320 In 2013, McKinney paid sna are approximately $44,877 to a 10 Fairview $13,124 ontheeee +0f thoze government agencies that responded workonpublic information SOURCE: Datlos Morning News research requests. Flower Mound spent around $26,824.50 on 198 hours of work on open records. Anna, in Collin County, paid more than $20,000 to a private firm for 155 hours spent on matters involving the Public Information Act. In Parker, a Collin County city of around 4,000 people, officials pay private attorney Jim Shepherd a monthly retainerfee. Because ofthat, Shepherd said, he couldn’t easily determine how muchtime was spent handling openrecords requests. When asked by The Newsto disclose how much heis paid each monthbythecity, Shepherd would not comment, saying the figure would be “grossly misleading.” “If the goal here is to determinethe city’s expense onlegal fees for public information requests, putting down my monthly retainer has almost nothing to do with that,”he said. Shepherdlater provided The News with a calculation indicating he was paid an estimated $7,050 in 2013 for 35.25 hours spent on public information requests. Going to the AG htp://res.dallasnews.comvinteractivesirecords/records-costs.htm] 3/24/2016 A lookat open government legal fees Page 3 of 5 Joseph Gorfida, a partner at Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager and Smith, a Dallas firm that represents more than 20 cities, said city-paid private attorneys aretypically asked to step in only when necessary:to seek an opinion from the attorney general. “If it’s something that, Wait a minute, we got an ongoinginvestigation; we're involvedinlitigation,’ [or] one of the exceptions, then they’ll reach out to the city attorney,” Gorfida said. Former Farmers BranchCity Council member Carol Dingmansaid she sent several open records requests for the city’s legal fees in the battle overits immigration ordinance, which barred landlords fromrenting to immigrants whowerein the U.S. unlawfully. The city appealed a federal court's ruling that the ordinance was unconstitutional to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. [ Fomer Farmers Branch City Council member Caral Dingman Former Farmers Branch council member Carol Dingman sued the 2008after her openrecords requests for the city's legal fees in the battle overits immigration ordinance were repeatedly referred to the attorney general for a ruling. After her requests were repeatedly referred to the attorney generalfor a ruling, Dingmansuedthecity in 2008. “TJ don’t want to say thecityis bad in every case, butit is an example of what a city can do to impedethe flow of information,” she said. Rangeofrulings The Newsasked the attorney general’s office for a list of ruling requests submitted in 2013 by each of the agencies includedin its study. Among them, McKinney forwarded 324 requests to the attorney general, while Flower Moundsent154. Anna, with a population of fewer than 10,000 people,submitted 48. http://res.dallasnews.com/interactivesrecordsirecords-costs.html 3/24/2016 A look at open government legalfees Gayle Thompson,records custodian for Carrollton-Farmers Page 4 of § Numberofruling requests sent to Texas attorney general in 2013 BranchISD,said thedistrict’s 1 Plano 923 attorneysare thefirst to look 2 Dallas 664 overail requests. 3 McKinney 324 4 Carrollton 302 “Everything goes throughan 5 Mesquite 301 attorney, everything, any open §___Rithardson 204 record,” she said. “So any open 2 G2vland 171 record wecan legally give out, B___Hower Mound i + 9 Frisco 131 we give outall.” 10 Dallas IsD 7 SOURCFS: Texas attorney general's offices U.S.Bill Aleshire, a volunteer tats attorney for the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas, said that’s partof the problem. “Tt not only causes delay in contradicting the commandin the [Texas] Public Information Act that public informationbe disclosed promptly, but is adding greatly to the expense ofthe government unnecessarily,” he said. Staff writers Taylor Danser (mailto.tdanser@dallasnews.com), Nanette Light (mailto:nlight@dallasnews.com), Julissa Trevifio (mailto:jtrevino@dallasnews.com) and special contributor Eden Stiffman contributed to this report. Photographer: Rose Baca (mailto:rbaca@dallasnews.com) Designer: Trey Oxford {malito:toxford@dallasnews.com} hitp://res.dallasnews,com/interacti ves/records/records-costs htm] 3/24/2016 A look at open governmentlegal fees Page $ of § Related content Compliance rankings On the record Make a request See which government Dotlas Morning Neves study Create, track and share agencies passed or failed Finds inconsistent handling requests for public records with our interactive of requests, systemic scorecard, violations. {epee samintesoat wench (rt? look af sears open 20000 > Back to Top govemmnatzoat Nagel 208p6r5 TermsofService {hitp/www.dallasnewsicomtermsiy’ Privacy Policy (http/Avww.dallasnews.com/privatey-poltegapscei 22015, The Dallas Maming News Inc. AlbRights:Resthvedinsasttnytieonetndnssninmtonittartcimuseorts ropabh? et coma mtatcosts mers hup://res.dallasnews,com/interactives‘records/records-costshtm] 3/24/2016 San Diego MayorTo Resign, Local Reports Say | TIME.com Page 1 of2 Mediation Complete for San Diego Mayor Bob [ Filner, Details Stit] Confidential erd-acd ofceons,[ne enti@ cy counel end arminontiaumiskors rom Congress have at sled fr Fie ee. By Foshe may have shoved Patel Upaite, 2848 pas Lea onan eros MeyrinhtFa ileegoes Theda enced ereitlnd iy secucppeestine afpelts lwoneet eg esrsis oFMerino tiga! sangrley Bat ‘plo Finerwtoreeee 3 pars BoomingBoxe: Elser a ‘Young Kids, Old Bodies La boing: Meo BobAlo,wsest " Erased caeibeeearaiee rceinai tl98wor, Seovete Lesh, and Sherloce Convendiy Tucanet io etponesere Wacete _— toeyscincemetne vefor ene ugh te deaswceoe tree uth olsuncaenhs? aneRowe Cobsmate Travia Team ‘suena od teorsigneReOe aynag eenit tng hel la tadbarciensrlors. Eiseinauanoa SRowrtagnon Sneseho of Seng;ayoigs actie HT Aillete apniedoe ehpment298 ae ‘oarsthtlogo per nernraatin.y aleTEDat ol pepeaeadearly a) FroenanrLaie SsesnthoranestheseSC aa seteeanEng sewFeelreg 41 RepsNon nateoeG00 ourseyhewruaana yt nattes Fon grate al tone Freelyta, 2 teem petra rte anyone coachanagcemsathrh sin wis esasrn or one eaa wing ttyers pce Ora Son Digs or angrier pantspruneayoe.ethersmaea lakhpoten sgt sokn oe ae on Ramer olegs dig Tig 3 sone5 An tn tg ssnpsf he dest Aobe epeepmmetsetia hey sey aiatnaeShotHaan tera eh hat en we eerie nay hewegynwnretg the beh i EXHIBIT G http:/swampland.time.com/2013/08/22/mediation-complete-for-san-diego-mayor-bab-filn... 3/25/2016 San Diego Mayor To Resign, Local Reports Say| TIME.com http://swampland,time.con/2013/08/22/medi Page 2 of2 ei sates 5 eweSareanryYu sket ‘CORNY WTA TE Fimgne (SWR ue f Me ‘ion-complete-for-san-diego-mayor-bob-filn... 3/25/2016