Parents Defending Education Opening Brief in Sequoia Union High School District Lawsuit

On October 23, 2024, Parents Defending Education filed its opening brief in Parents Defending Education v. Sequoia Union High School District.

The California Public Records Act exists “to prevent secrecy in government and to contribute significantly to the public understanding of government activities.” Fredericks v. Superior Ct., 233 Cal. App. 4th 209, 223 (2015). That is exactly what Parents Defending Education sought to do here when it sent a CPRA request to the Sequoia Union High School District. PDE wanted to investigate why a school-sponsored student newspaper, the M-A Chronicle, tried to prevent a documentary filmmaker from using certain photos and videos that depicted the District in a negative light. PDE, as a member of the public, requested copies of the District’s public records of the M-A Chronicle’s censorship efforts. PDE intended to post these records online to show the public why the M-A Chronicle took these actions and whether those actions were supported by taxpayer dollars.

The District does not dispute that PDE has a right to request public records or that the District is a valid recipient of PDE’s CPRA request. But the District refused to turn over some of the requested records for three reasons. First, the District asserted that certain records that were “created, held or used by students” were not “public records” because they contained student expression. Verified Pet. ¶¶28-33, Ex. B at 2. But government documents do not cease being “public records” merely because they contain an individual’s expression. See, e.g., Iloh v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 87 Cal. App. 5th 513, 525 & n.5 (2023). Second, the District asserted that records “created, held or used by students” and records of “the advice and supervision the journalism teacher provided to” the M-A Chronicle were protected by a “reporter’s privilege.” Verified Pet. ¶¶35-41, Ex. B at 2. But the CPRA has no “reporter’s privilege” exemption, and it wouldn’t apply to the withheld records in any case. Finally, the District asserted that disclosing records of “the advice and supervision [of] the journalism teacher” would not be in the public interest because it would “sow discord between parents and teachers and within the community.” Verified Pet. ¶¶28, 42-53, Ex. B at 2-3. But these types of “‘[v]ague … concerns’” cannot “foreclose the public’s right of access.” ACLU Found. v. Superior Ct., 3 Cal. 5th 1032, 1046 (2017).

PDE has shown by verified petition that it is entitled to these records under the CPRA, and the burden of proof is on the District, not PDE, to justify withholding them. Because the District cannot carry its burden, the Court must issue a writ of mandate ordering the District to comply with the CPRA. The Court should grant PDE’s petition.