St. Croix v. Superior Ct.
Annotate this CaseGrossman submitted a request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code, 6250) and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance for documents relating to San Francisco Ethics Commission regulations governing complaints alleging violations of the ordinance. Grossman requested drafts of Sunshine Ordinance regulations, a September 2012 staff report about the regulations, and all documents relating to “[t]he preparation, review, revision and distribution of all prior drafts and final versions of the Draft Amendments and Staff Report, including, without limitation, emails, memoranda, notes, letters or other correspondence or communications to or from the San Francisco City Attorney, any Deputy City Attorney or any other person in the Office of the San Francisco City Attorney.” The Commission produced more than 120 documents, six of which were partially redacted, but withheld other documents as protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine, including: 15 requests from commission staff to the city attorney’s office for legal advice about proposed regulations and nine responses by the city attorney’s office, providing advice about the proposed regulations. Grossman successfully sought a writ of mandate, arguing that the Sunshine Ordinance compels disclosure of the documents, even if they would otherwise be protected by privilege. The court of appeal ruled in favor of the commission. The city’s charter incorporates the attorney-client privilege and supersedes any contrary ordinance provision.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.