ORDER RE: PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND GOOD CAUSE SHOWING: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Petitioner, v. 2014-2015 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent. (M131242), SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY

ABSTRACT:  On April 8, 2015, Hon. Lydia M. Villarreal, Judge of the Superior Court, issued ORDER RE: PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND GOOD CAUSE SHOWING in CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Petitioner, v. 2014-2015 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent, Case No. M131242. The ORDER states, as follows:
Pursuant to the decision of this Court dated March 24, 2015, respondent 2014-2015 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury has submitted two declarations of Louis Panetta re: Good Cause For Review Of Records to this Court under seal as directed. The Court has reviewed the Declarations and now finds that the Grand Jury has demonstrated good cause for its review of the records that are the subject of the subpoena duces tecum served on petitioner, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, on or about February 24, 2015.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum is denied and the City is hereby directed to produce the records described in the Subpoena forthwith. The documents must be provided to the Court, Dept. 1, no later than 4:00 pm, on April 15, 2015.
lt is further ordered that the Grand Jury return the subject records to the City upon completion of its review, and that it destroy any copies of the records that it may have in its possession. The parties are ordered to execute a Protective Order implementing this directive.
Finally, this Order shall constitute the final decision of the Court in this matter. See City of Woodlake vs. Tulare County Grand Jury (2011) 197 Cal.App.4^th 1293, 1298-1299.  A copy of the ORDER is embedded. 

NOTE: “The files were dropped off at the courthouse around 3p.m. April 15, an hour  before the deadline,” according to reporting in The Carmel Pine Cone, April 17, 2015.

ORDER RE Petition to Quash Subpoena (M131242) 4-8-2015

ORDER RE: PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AND GOOD CAUSE SHOWING
Hon. Lydia M. Villarreal, Judge of the Superior Court
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Petitioner, v. 2014-2015 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent.
Case No. M131242
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
April 8, 2015

DECISION, HON. LYDIA M. VILLARREAL, Judge of the Superior Court: City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Plaintiff/Petitioner, Decision vs. 2014-15 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury, Defendant/Respondent, Case No.: M131242

ABSTRACT:  On March 24, 2015, HON. LYDIA M. VILLARREAL, Judge of the Superior Court, SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY, issued her Decision regarding City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Plaintiff/Petitioner, Decision vs.2014-15 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury, Defendant/Respondent, Case No.: M131242. 

Order:

The Grand Jury must provide an in camera showing of cause. This showing must be filed with the court under seal. The court recognizes the Grand Jury has a strong interest in maintaining the secrecy of the nature of its investigation. "One of the hallmarks of the grand jury is that its deliberations are shrouded in secrecy." Packer v. Superior Court (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 152, 17; City of Woodlake, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 1304.

Protective Order:

After the in camera review, should the court order the production of documents, the parties shall prepare and sign a Protective Order ensuring that the records are returned to the City at the close of the investigation and any copies should be destroyed. In ordering a Protective Order, the court does not impugn the integrity of the jurors. Protective orders are routinely given in the context of confidential or private materials.
The Decision document is embedded.

Judge Villarreal Decision (m131242) 03-24-15

Decision
HON. LYDIA M. VILLARREAL, Judge of the Superior Court
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Plaintiff/Petitioner, Decision vs. 2014-15 Monterey County Civil Grand Jury, Defendant/Respondent
Case No.: M131242.
March 24, 2015

PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent. Case NoM131242, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY

ABSTRACT:  Don G. Freeman, City Attorney, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, submitted PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF in CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent. Case No. M131242, to SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY on March 17, 2015. Reply Brief includes Penal Code 925a Does Not Permit the Disclosure Of Constitutionally Protected Personnel Records, Enforcing The Subpoena Would Deny Due Process, Enforcing the Subpoena Would Deny Privacy Rights, Woodlake is Confined to Police Records and A Protective Order Would Be Required if the Court Orders Disclosure of Personnel Files. Conclusion The core issue remains one of privacy. These personnel records are confidential. Special attention is demanded whenever confidential records are being divulged. See White v. Davis, (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 757, 774, 120 Cal. Rptr. 94, 105. The PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF document is embedded.

Petitioner's Reply Brief (m131242)

PETITIONER'S REPLY BRIEF
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Petitioner, v. 2014-2015 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent.
Case No. M131242
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

RESPONDENT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent. Case NoM131242, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY

ABSTRACT:  Attorneys for Respondent 2014-2015 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, CHARLES J. McKEE, County Counsel and LESLIE J. GIRARD, Chief Assistant County Counsel, County of Monterey, submitted RESPONDENT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM in CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent. Case No. M131242, to SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY.  Arguments include RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, ROLE OF THE CIVIL GRAND JURY, THE GRAND WRY IS ENTITLED TO THE RECORDS, GRAND JURY SECRECY REQUIREMENTS PROTECT THE PRIVACY INTERESTS OF THE EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS, PRODUCTION OF THE RECORDS TO THE GRAND JURY WILL NOT RESULT IN DISCLOSURE TO OTHER THIRD PARTIES and A PROTECTIVE ORDER IS NOT NECESSARY. CONCLUSION The plain language and legislative history of Section 925a compels a conclusion that the Grand Jury is entitled to the Records because it has initiated an investigation into matters affecting the City and the Records are relevant to that investigation. In addition, the confidentiality and secrecy obligations imposed on the Grand Jury will maintain the confidentiality and privacy interests of the employees such that any right to privacy will not be infringed. The petition should be denied and, because the end of the Grand Jury's term is approaching, the City should be ordered to comply with the Subpoena forthwith.  And significantly, “The State Interest In Allowing A Grand Jury To Fulfill Its Watchdog Function Outweighs The Privacy Interests Of The Employees In Their Personnel Records Due To The Confidentiality And Secrecy Obligations Of the Jury.” The RESPONDENT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM document is embedded.

Respondent's Points and Authorities in Opposition to Petition to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum

RESPONDENT'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Petitioner, v. 2014-2015 MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent.
Case No. M131242
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY, CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent, Case No. M131242: NEW PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM HEARING DATE, TIME & LOCATION

NEW PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM HEARING DATE, TIME & LOCATION:

Petition Hearing, Wednesday, March 18, 2015 @ 11:00 A.M., Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor, 240 Church St., Salinas, CA.

Hon. Lydia M. Villarreal, Assistant Supervising Judge, Civil Division

PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA & ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM: CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent. Case No. M131242, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY

NEW PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM HEARING DATE, TIME & LOCATION:
Petition Hearing, Wednesday, March 18, 2015 @ 11:00 A.M., Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor, 240 Church St., Salinas, CA.

Hon. Lydia M. Villarreal, Assistant Supervising Judge, Civil Division

ABSTRACT: On Thursday, March 19, 2015, Hon. Lydia M. Villarreal, Assistant Supervising Judge, Civil Division, will preside over a hearing on the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea’s PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA at 8:30 A.M., Department 14, Monterey Courthouse, 1200 Aguajito Road, Monterey, CA. Donald G. Freeman. City Attorney, City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, submitted a PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA to SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MONTEREY, dated March 9, 2015. “The County of Monterey Superior Court, acting on behalf of the civil Grand Jury, has served a subpoena duces tecum  on the City. The subpoena seeks production of personnel records for ten current and former City employees.” ARGUMENTS include THE GRAND JURY'S SUBPOENA POWER IS LIMITED TO "OFFICERS," THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT PROTECTS PERSONNEL RECORDS, PERSONNEL RECORDS ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED, GRAND JURY RECORDS ARE NOT ALWAYS CONFIDENTIAL, PERSONNEL RECORDS MAY NOT BE SELECTIVELY DISCLOSED, CASE LAW PROTECTS PERSONNEL RECORDS, THE COUNTY'S PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER IS INADEQUATE. CONCLUSION Numerous courts have held that personnel files must be protected in the absence of a focused need to obtain specific information. See, e.g. Harding Lawson Assoc. v. Superior Court (1992) (10 Cal. App.4th 7, at 10,11 ). In Harding Trial Court had ordered production 56 categories of information in personnel records. On appeal a peremptory writ was issued "to vacate its order insofar as it required disclosure of confidential material in the personnel files of employees other than [plaintiff]."  Id. The court explained that personnel files are protected unless the party seeking discovery "can show a compelling need for the particular documents and that the information cannot reasonably be obtained through depositions or from nonconfidential sources." Hardin Lawson Assoc. v. Superior Court (1992) (10 Cal. App.4th 7, at 10) See also Alch v. Superior Court (2008) (165 Cai.App.4th 1412, 1432) re: "confidential" nature of the particular documents in the personnel file.

In the instant case it appears the Grand Jury did not ask the employees whose personnel documents are being subpoenaed if they would waive their right of confidentiality and allow the City to produce the documents, or alternatively, subpoena the employees and their personnel records directly.

Therefore, the Court is obligated to quash the Grand Jury's subpoena.

The PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA document, Exhibit "B" - City's letter to former and current employees re waiver of confidentiality rights and ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM document are embedded. 

NOTE: Exhibit "A" -the Civil Grand Jury Subpoena (Under Seal) - not attached to the Petition served on the Respondent Employees/Real Parties in Interest

Exhibit "C" - Declaration of City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City Administrator Regarding Employee Employment Status (Under Seal) - not attached to the Petition served on the Respondent Employees/Real Parties in Interest

On March 6, 2015, Marla O. Anderson, Judge of the Superior Court, ordered “that the petition and supporting papers be filed and served on counsel for the Grand Jury no later than March 10, 2015; that responsive pleadings be filed and served no later than March 13, 2015; any reply filed and served no later than March 17, 2015; and that a hearing on the petition be held in a Department to be determined on March 19, 2015, at 8:30 am."

NOTE: Judge: Hon. Lydia M. Villarreal, Assistant Supervising Judge, Civil Division

City of Carmel-By-The-sea v. Monterey County Civil Grand Jury (m131242)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF MONTEREY
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA, Moving Party, v. MONTEREY COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY, Respondent.
Case NoM131242
PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA
ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING ON PETITION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM