1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Michael Millen, Esq. 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 871-0777

Michael Millen Attorney at Law (#151731) 119 Calle Marguerita Ste. 100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Telephone: (408) 871-0777 Fax: (408) 866-7480 email: MikeMillen@aol.com Attorney for Petitioner Life Legal Defense Foundation

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, Petitioner, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and BRENDA GEE DEPERALTA, Respondents. 1. This Petition is being brought pursuant to Government Code ("Gov.C.") 6250, et seq., also known as the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). 2. Petitioners apply for an issuance of a writ of mandate under Gov.C. 6258 to inspect and copy public records in the custody of a public agency as defined in Gov.C. 6252(d). 3. Petitioner Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) is a California corporation. 4. Respondent Board of Regents of the University of California (Regents) is headquartered in Oakland, California, and respondent Brend Gee DePeralta is a public officer who works for the Regents. 5. Venue is proper in this judicial district, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 395, because defendant Regents is based in Oakland, California. NO.: VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DECLARATORY RELIEF [BY FAX]

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

110CV172614

Page 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Michael Millen, Esq. 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 871-0777

6. On Jan. 27, 2012, attorneys for petitioner submitted to the Regents San Francisco campus a written request for public records. A true and correct copy of that request is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Said request sought records in 10 categories of public records. Request #3 and ##6-9 were as follows: 3. copies of the accounting records for the last four years 6. the names/addresses of every physician who participated in the Project or performed procedures within the Project from 2007 to the present 7. the names of all trainees from 2007 to present 8. the names of the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group for this Project 9. copies of all protocols, policies, and/or procedures for identifying, selecting, or recruiting patients to participate in the Project 7. On February 9, 2012, having received no response to or even an acknowledgement of the Request, Catherine Short of LLDF e-mailed Communications Coordinator Brenda Gee DePeralta of the Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost to check on the status of the request. 8. On February 10, Ms. DePeralta responded with a letter acknowledging receipt of the Request. 9. On February 22, 2012, having received no further communication from UCSF concerning the Request, Ms. Short again e-mailed Ms. DePeralta, seeking an update on the status of the request and an estimate of the copying costs. 10. On February 28, 2012, still having received no response, Ms. Short again e-mailed Ms. DePeralta, stating that unless she received a substantive response to the request within seven business days, she would pursue other remedies. Ms. DePeralta responded the next day, stating that she would provide a timeline for production the following day. 11. Three days later, on March 2, Ms. DePeralta responded by saying that review of the documents was estimated to take another 14 days, at which time she would provide a page count and cost of duplication, payment for which would be due in advance of production.

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

110CV172614

Page 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Michael Millen, Esq. 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 871-0777

12. On March 16, Ms. DePeralta sent a letter to petitioner, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. That letter stated that 508 pages of responsive, non-privileged, nonexempt documents had been located but that that two categories of information would not be provided: 1) names/addresses of physicians participating in the project and names of trainees participating in the project, and 2) preliminary research data. Additionally, Ms. DePeralta stated that she would provide either a status or update or a cost estimate for the accounting records by March 29, 2012. 13. In response to Ms. DePeraltas letter, petitioner sent an email on March 21, 2012, a true and correct copy of which (along with the other emails in the chain) is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. That email stated in part that the Regents reasons for withholding documents were not legally tenable and that all responsive documents should be produced. The letter further requested that the Regents produce a log if they were going to persist with their purported exemptions. 14. In response to petitioners email of March 21, 2012, Ms. Gee sent to petitioner a letter from University of California at San Francisco Deputy Campus Counsel Greta Schnetzler, on behalf of respondent, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. That letter stated in part that the names of physicians and trainees would not be produced. 15. Ultimately, 463 pages of documents were sent to petitioner on April 2, 2012. The production did not include the following: Request #3 - Copies of the accounting for the last 4 years Request #6- Names of the participating physicians/trainers Request #7- Names of all trainees Request #8- Names of the Stakeholders Request #9- Copies of all protocols as relates to recruiting patients Respondents have provided no log, no timetable for production, nor cost estimate for these missing items. 16. The documents sought by petitioner are public records. As such, it is required that they be made available to members of the public for review upon request. Petitioner made a lawful

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

110CV172614

Page 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Michael Millen, Esq. 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 871-0777

request for said public records. Respondent has a duty to provide the public records in question to members of the public who make a lawful request for inspection and copying and to do so without delay. 17. Respondents have unlawfully withheld public records from Petitioners. 18. Petitioners petition this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, as per Gov.C. 6258, requiring Respondent to provide, for inspection and copying, the documents described as items 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Exhibit 1. 19. The issuance of the writ is indispensable to the enforcement of the Petitioners' right in that Petitioners have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law whereby their rights can be upheld or whereby Respondents can be compelled to comply with the CPRA. If the relief sought by this petition is not granted, great and irreparable injury will be caused to Petitioners. PRAYER 1. That the Court issue an alternative Writ of Mandamus commanding Respondents to comply with Gov.C. 6253 or to show cause before this Court at a time specified by Court order why it has not done so and why a peremptory writ should not issue; 2. That, on the return of the alternative writ and the hearing of this Petition, this Court issue its peremptory Writ of Mandamus commanding Respondent to provide, for inspection and copying, the documents requested in this Petition; 3. For reasonable attorney fees; 4. For taxable costs of suit incurred herein; 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: April 13, 2012 MICHAEL MILLEN, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

110CV172614

Page 4

Dana Cody, Esq. Executive Director Catherine W. Short, Esq. Legal Director Mary Riley Administrative Director Allison K. Aranda, Esq. Senior Staff Counsel Bo ard of D irec tors John R. Streett, Esq. Chairman Dana Cody, Esq. Marcella Tyler Ketelhut Terry L. Thompson, Esq. Colette Wilson, Esq. Anthony E. Wynne, JD Advisory Board The Hon. Steve Baldwin San Diego, California The Rev. Michael R. Carey, OP, JD Colorado Daniel Cathcart, Esq. Los Angeles, California The Hon. William P. Clark Paso Robles, California Raymond Dennehy, PhD. San Francisco, California The Rev. Joseph D. Fessio, SJ San Francisco, California The Hon. Ray Haynes Riverside, California James Hirsen, Esq. Riverside, California The Hon. Howard Kaloogian Los Angeles, California David Llewellyn, Esq. Sacramento, California Anne J. OConnor, Esq. New Jersey Charles E. Rice, Esq. South Bend, Indiana Ben Stein, Esq. West Hollywood, California Andrew Zepeda, Esq. Beverly Hills, California Nort hern Ca li forni a (Administration) P.O. Box 2105 Napa, California 94558 (707) 2246675 Sout hern Ca li forn ia P.O. Box 1313 Ojai, California 93024 (805) 6401940

January 27, 2012 Brenda Gee DePeralta University of California, San Francisco Box 0402, S24 San Francisco, CA 94143 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Request for Documents/Information In or about 2007, the Regents of the University of California sponsored a Health Workforce Pilot Project (HWPP) #171, under the auspices of the ANSIRH or Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program at UC San Francisco. The Project operates under a mechanism of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. The Project is on-going and is under the direction of Patricia Anderson and Philip Darney, M.D. of UCSF with the Bixby Center for Reproductive Health. We request the following: 1. a copy of the Application 2. a copy of each Project Report and Extension Request for the last four years 3. copies of the accounting records for the last four years 4. copies of any waivers or other documents purporting to relieve "trainees" of potential civil or criminal liability for performing abortions in violation of California law 5. the names/addresses of all the institutions or training sites or health facilities or clinics which were used in this project 6. the names/addresses of every physician who participated in the Project or performed procedures within the Project from 2007 to the present 7. the names of all trainees from 2007 to present 8. the names of the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group for this Project

LLD F .org L IF E : AT TH E H E ART OF TH E L AW

Exhibit 1

9. copies of all protocols, policies, and/or procedures for identifying, selecting, or recruiting patients to participate in the Project 10. copies of all documents, including consent or waiver forms, provided to patients who participated in the Project, relating to such participation. Very truly yours, Catherine Short

LIFE: AT THE HEART OF THE LAW LLDF.org

Exhibit 2

Re: UCSF CPRA 012014

mailbox:///C:/LocalDocs/Thunderbird/Thunderbird Data/Inbo...

Subject: Re: UCSF CPRA 012014 From: Ka e Short <lldfojai@earthlink.net> Date: 3/21/2012 3:14 PM To: "Gee, Brenda" <BGee@Chano.ucsf.edu> CC: "Canning, Marcia (Legal)" <MCanning@legal.UCSF.EDU>
Dear Ms. DePeralta: Thank you for your letter of March 16, 2012. Our check should have arrived at your of ice yesterday, so we look forward to receiving the documents you have agreed to produce very shortly. Please consider this letter as our attempt to meet and confer regarding the objections you have raised to the remaining documents. You irst object that the names of physicians and trainees is exempt from disclosure under the teachings of Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 152-153 (D.C. Cir. 2006). We appreciate that Judicial Watch, Inc. case does teach that palpable threats of violence may take precedence over disclosing names pursuant to a FOIA request where that disclosure serves no visible public interest. In this case, the requested information serves a visible public interest in determining whether the University is conducting a program which facilitates and encourages mid-level health care professionals to practice medicine without a license. Further, we are aware of no palpable threats related to disclosing the information requested. Thus, we believe the case to be inapplicable. However, rather than debating the iner points of FOIA, we would simply note that this request was not made under FOIA but rather was made under the California Public Records Act. California courts have thoroughly explored the concept of withholding information on the grounds of safety and security, and have clearly spoken to the concept, to wit: 1) If the topic in question is one which generally arouses passions (e.g., the death penalty), then the public interest in the information is heightened and the state can justif[y] nondisclosure only to the extent it may show that disclosure of that information would pose a potential security threat of some sort. ACLU v. Superior Court (Dept. of Corrections) (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 55, 71. 2) Courts hold that [a] mere assertion of possible endangerment is insuf icient to justify nondisclosure and that a potential for mischief is insuf icient. Commission on Peace Of icer Standards & Training v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, 301-302; reaf irmed at Long Beach Police Of icers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 292, ___, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 868, 886. 3) This case is reminiscent of the Commission on Peace Of icer Standards case cited above,

1 of 6

Exhibit 3

4/4/2012 6:16 PM

Re: UCSF CPRA 012014

mailbox:///C:/LocalDocs/Thunderbird/Thunderbird Data/Inbo...

in which our Supreme Court analyzed as follows: [T]he Commission argued that persons who were hostile toward law enforcement of icers generally (though not toward a particular individual of icer) might use the list of names to locate peace of icers addresses through other means (such as Internet resources) and harass them. It offered no evidence that such a scenario is more than speculative, or even that it is feasible. Furthermore, by virtue of the visibility of their activities in the community, the identity of many of icers is well known or readily obtainable. The Commission has not provided any convincing rationale for its assertion that disclosing a comprehensive list of of icers names and employing departments (with the exceptions noted above) would increase the threat to of icer safety presented by those with a generalized hostility toward law enforcement of icers. Commission on Peace Of icer Standards & Training v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278, 302-303 Here, the information sought will likely consist of doctors, nurses, and other professionals who are licensed by the State of California and whose activities are visible in the community. The Regents can no more justify their withholding of the identify of these persons any more than the POST Commission could justify withholding the names of police of icers. Your second objection has to do with producing preliminary research data on the grounds of academic freedom. We assume that this is only referring to request #2 which requests a copy of each Project Report and Extension Request for the last four years. We would irst note that a Project Report would seem to be different than preliminary research data. More importantly, we are unaware of any California statute or case law which allows an agency to withhold a document on the grounds of academic freedom. In any case, if you persist in this objection to providing the Project Reports and Extension Requests (or any other document responsive to our request), we would request that you produce some sort of a log detailing the documents withheld on these grounds along with suf icient information so as to enable us to evaluate your claim for withholding the document. We would like to avoid litigating this matter in the Superior Court but are prepared to do so if we cannot amicably resolve your objections within the next ive business days, i.e., by March 28, 2012. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if you will be providing the relevant data within that time frame. Sincerely,

_____________________________________
Catherine W. Short, Esq.

Legal Director Life Legal Defense Foundation

805-640-1940 lldfojai@cs.com

2 of 6

4/4/2012 6:16 PM

Re: UCSF CPRA 012014

mailbox:///C:/LocalDocs/Thunderbird/Thunderbird Data/Inbo...

On Mar 16, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Gee, Brenda wrote:

Dear Ms. Short: Attached is my letter to you regarding the status of the search conducted in response to PRA 012014. Sincerely,
Brenda Gee DePeralta Communications Coordinator University of California, San Francisco Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost 513 Parnassus Avenue, S-24 San Francisco, CA 94143-0402 (415) 476-4317 tel bgee@chanoff.ucsf.edu

From: Katie Short [mailto:lldfojai@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:49 PM To: Gee, Brenda Cc: Canning, Marcia (Legal) Subject: Fwd: UCSF CPRA 012014

Dear Ms. Gee: It is now over a month since I submitted the attached public records act request. After I first submitted it, you did not even acknowledge the request until I e-mailed you 12 days after it was submitted. Hearing nothing more, I followed up with this e-mail on February 22, to which you have not responded.

3 of 6

4/4/2012 6:16 PM

Re: UCSF CPRA 012014

mailbox:///C:/LocalDocs/Thunderbird/Thunderbird Data/Inbo...

Unless I receive a substantive response to my request within the next seven business days, I will assume that you do not intend to take any further steps to comply with this request and that I should pursue other remedies to get the requested documents.

_____________________________________
Catherine W. Short, Esq.

Legal Director Life Legal Defense Foundation

805-640-1940 lldfojai@cs.com

Begin forwarded message:

From: Katie Short <LLDFOjai@cs.com> Date: February 22, 2012 7:17:58 PM PST To: "Gee, Brenda" <BGee@Chanoff.ucsf.edu> Bcc: "info@LifePriority.net" <jeannetted@nethere.com> Subject: Re: UCSF CPRA 012014
Ms. Gee: I am following up on the above-reference CPRA request. Could you tell me whether all the relevant, non-exempt documents have been located? If they are ready, could you provide me with a cost estimate for obtaining hard copies, and where the documents are available for inspection without copying. Very truly yours,

_____________________________________
Catherine W. Short, Esq.

4 of 6

4/4/2012 6:16 PM

Re: UCSF CPRA 012014

mailbox:///C:/LocalDocs/Thunderbird/Thunderbird Data/Inbo...

Legal Director Life Legal Defense Foundation

805-640-1940 lldfojai@cs.com

On Feb 10, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Gee, Brenda wrote:

Dear Ms. Short: Attached is acknowledgement of your January 27, 2012 CPRA request. Hardcopy will be sent upon request. Sincerely, Brenda Gee DePeralta Communications Coordinator 513 Parnassus Avenue, S-24 Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost University of California, San Francisco (415) 476-4317 tel -----Original Message----From: Katie Short [mailto:LLDFOjai@cs.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 11:24 PM To: Gee, Brenda Subject: California Public Records Act Request Dear Ms. Peralta: On January 27, I e-mailed you a letter requesting certain documents and information pursuant to the California Public Records Act. I have received neither a response to that request nor even an acknowledgment of receiving the request. Could you please inform me of the status of my request? A copy of the letter is attached for your reference. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

5 of 6

4/4/2012 6:16 PM

Re: UCSF CPRA 012014

mailbox:///C:/LocalDocs/Thunderbird/Thunderbird Data/Inbo...

Very truly yours, Catherine Short Legal Director Life Legal Defense Foundation P.O. Box 2105 Napa, CA 94558 707.224.6675 707.337.6880 (c) 707.224.6676 (f) <PRA 012014 SHORT, C (ack ltr 2-10-12).pdf>

<PRA 012014 (page count ltr 3-16-12).pdf>

6 of 6

4/4/2012 6:16 PM

Exhibit 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Michael Millen, Esq. 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 871-0777

Michael Millen Attorney at Law (#151731) 119 Calle Marguerita Ste. 100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 Telephone: (408) 871-0777 Fax: (408) 866-7480 email: MikeMillen@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA LIFE LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION, Petitioner, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent. NO.: POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [BY FAX] Date: Time: Dept: 31 FACTS On January 27, 2012, Petitioner Life Legal Defense Foundation ( LLDF) electronically submitted to respondent University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) a request for documents and information under the California Public Records Act (Government Code 6250, et seq.).(See Exhibit 1 to the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Relief (Petition) filed herewith.) The request sought information pertaining to a project sponsored by the University of California called Health Workforce Pilot Project #171. The Project operates under the auspices of the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. On February 9, 2012, having received no response to or even an acknowledgement of the Request, Catherine Short of LLDF e-mailed Brenda DePeralta, Communications Coordinator for

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Page 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Michael Millen, Esq. 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 871-0777

UCSF) to check on the status of the request. On February 10, Ms. DePeralta responded with a letter acknowledging receipt of the Request. On February 22, 2012, having received no further communication from UCSF concerning the Request, Ms. Short again e-mailed Ms. DePeralta, seeking an update on the status of the request and an estimate of the copying costs. On February 28, 2012, still having received no response, Ms. Short again e-mailed Ms. DePeralta, stating that unless she received a substantive response to the request within seven business days, she would pursue other remedies. Ms. DePeralta responded the next day, stating that she would provide a timeline for production the following day. Three days later, on March 2, Ms. DePeralta responded by saying that review of the documents was estimated to take another 14 days, at which time she would provide Ms. Short with the page count and cost of duplication, payment for which would be due in advance of production. On March 16, Ms. DePeralta sent a letter to petitioner (Petition, Ex. 2). That letter stated that 508 pages of responsive, non-privileged, non-exempt documents had been located but that that two categories of information would not be provided: 1) names/addresses of physicians participating in the project and names of trainees participating in the project, and 2) preliminary research data. Additionally, Ms. DePeralta stated that she would provide either a status or update or a cost estimate for the accounting records by March 29, 2012. Ms. Short objected in writing to the withholding of the names of the physicians and trainees participating in the project, as well as questioning the withholding of preliminary research data. (Petition, Ex. 3.) Ms. Gee responded with a letter from Greta Schnetzler, Deputy Campus Counsel for UCSF attempting to justify the withholding of names. (Petition, Ex. 4.) Ultimately, 463 pages of documents were sent to petitioner on April 2, 2012. There has been no other production of documents, no log, no timetable for production, nor a cost estimate for the accounting and other records sought in the Request.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Page 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Michael Millen, Esq. 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 871-0777

ARGUMENT I. WRIT RELIEF IS APPROPRIATE TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS TO COMPLY WITH CPRA A superior court has the authority "to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office..." (California Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") I 085). In the present case, Respondent Regents is a "state agency" as per Gov. C. 6252(f) and respondent Brenda Gee DePeralta is a "public official" (Gov. C. 6255 and 6259) authorized to respond to a public records request and is the "officer or person charged with withholding records." (Gov. C. 6259). Respondents have a duty to provide access to records, for inspection and copying, to petitioner who has made a lawful request for said records as per Gov.C. 6253. Petitioners have made a lawful request for public records and Respondents have failed to comply with the document disclosure requirements found in Gov.C. 6253. Any person may institute proceedings for injunctive or declarative relief or writ of mandate in any court of competent jurisdiction to enforce his or her right to inspect or to receive a copy of any public record or class of public records under this chapter. The times for responsive pleadings and for hearings in these proceedings shall be set by the judge of the court with the object of securing a decision as to these matters at the earliest possible time. Therefore, in this present case, there is direct legal authority for a writ of mandamus.

II. THE CPRA ESTABLISHES A PUBLIC POLICY THAT STRONGLY FAVORS DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS. The California Public Records Act declares that "access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." (Gov.C. 6250.) Consequently, the disclosure requirements of the CPRA are to be interpreted broadly. (Sutter's Place v. Superior Court (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 170.) Likewise, exemptions to the CPRA are construed narrowly. (California State Univ. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 810.) Moreover, since the passage of Proposition 59, the goals of the CPRA have been elevated to constitutional status, requiring other statutes and court rules to be construed so as to accomplish its aims. As the court stated in Savaglio v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007) 149 Cal. App. 41h 588, 597, "Lest there be any question, Proposition 59 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Page 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

requires us to broadly construe a statute or court rule if it furthers the peoples right of access and to narrowly construe the same 'if it limits the right of access. (quoting Cal. Const., art. I, 3, subd. (b)(2)) (emphasis in original). Both the CPRA and its interpretive case law make clear that any person has the right to access public records. No justification for seeking the records need be made, and idle curiosity is just as good a reason as any other. (Marylander v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125).

III. RESPONDENTS REFUSAL TO GIVE RECORDS IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER ANY EXEMPTION. A. Requests #3 and #9 (Accounting Records and Protocols) Petitioners Request #3 was copies of the accounting records for the last four years, and Request #9 was for copies of all protocols, policies, and/or procedures for identifying, selecting,

13 or recruiting patients to participate in the Project. 14 These have not been provided and respondents have not indicated why. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Michael Millen, Esq. 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 871-0777

B. Requests #6-8 (Names of physicians, trainees, and stakeholders) Requests #6-8 were as follows: 6. the names/addresses of every physician who participated in the Project or performed procedures within the Project from 2007 to the present 7. the names of all trainees from 2007 to present 8. the names of the members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group for this Project Respondents have indicated that they are not required to disclose this information on several different grounds. First, they cited to Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA, 449 F.3d 141, 152-153 (D.C. Cir. 2006), which held that palpable threats of violence may take precedence over disclosing names pursuant to a FOIA request where that disclosure serves no visible public interest. That case was applying privacy protections under FOIA (and not CPRA), was fact-specific, and did not provide for a categorical exemption for names of abortion providers.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Page 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Respondents also cited to Gov.C. 6254.18, but that section only allows for withholding personal information held by a public agency. In this case, the information sought is not personal information nor are the records held by a public agency because the statute gives a very narrow definition of these terms. Under 6254.18(b)(2), these terms have only the following meaning[]: (2) Personal information means the following information related to an individual that is maintained by a public agency: social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, statements of personal worth or personal financial data filed pursuant to subdivision (n) of Section 6254, personal medical history, employment history, electronic mail address, and information that reveals any electronic network location or identity. (3) Public agency means all of the following: (A) The State Department of Health Care Services. (B) The Department of Consumer Affairs. (C) The Department of Managed Health Care. (D) The State Department of Public Health. Because a persons name is not among the information protected by 6254.18(b)(2), and also

14 because the respondents are not amongst the very small list of agencies protected by 15 6254.18(b)(3), this code section has no bearing on the request. 16 Respondents citation to Gov.C. 6254(c) is similarly misplaced. That code section only 17 applies to invasion of personal privacy such as Personnel, medical, or similar files, and a 18 persons mere name hardly qualifies. 19 Respondents also cite to Gov.C. 6254(k), but that section does not apply because 20 disclosing a persons name is not exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, 21 including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege. 22 Respondents final citation is to Gov.C. 6255(a), on the supposed grounds that the public 23 interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by 24 disclosure of the record. Respondents have cited to no public interest which is served by 25 withholding the names sought, and in no case can respondents carry their burden of showing that 26 the supposed interests clearly outweigh the publics right. 27 28
Michael Millen, Esq. 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 871-0777

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Page 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Michael Millen, Esq. 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 871-0777

CONCLUSION This court is asked to order respondents to comply with the law and make the records available to petitioner.

Dated: April 13, 2012 MICHAEL MILLEN, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE

Page 6

Michael Millen, Esq. (#151731) 119 Calle Marguerita #100 Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 871-0777

(408) 866-7480

Plaintiff

1225 Fallon Street

Alameda

Oakland, California 94612

Life Legal v. Regents of University of California X

[BY FAX]

X X

X X 1

4/13/2012 Michael Millen, Esq.