DWP-MWD Lawsuit

DORIGINAL
1 MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney (SBN 111529x)

2 RICHARD M. BROWN, General Counsel for Water & Power (SBN 41277)
RICHARD TOM, Assistant General Counsel (SBN 127292)
3 JULIE RILEY, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 197407)
FILED
Superior Court or California
4 TINA SHIM, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 233910)
COllDty Of Los Angeles
111 North Hope Street
JUL 30 2015
5 P.O.Box51111-Room340
A~453
Shem 1\. ~e vOIcer/Clerk
6 Los Angeles, California 900 12
~oOD ~
By'
.
,Deputy
Telephone Number (213) 367-2372
.
.r7 Facsimile (213) 367-4588
{) eP JJ .. 0
E-mail: tina.shim@ladwp.com
~ C"
NO FEE-6103 GOV'T CODE
06
C/~
8
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

acting by and through the LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENTOFWATERANDPOWER
10
11
12
13
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
14
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT
15
157,0 S
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, acting by and ) Case No.

8S
6
through the LOS ANGELES
)
DEPARTMENTOFWATERAND
) VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND
POWER,
) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Petitioner,
) FOR DECLARATORY AND
vs.
) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
)
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT ) (Cal. Const., art. I, 1;
) Code Civ. Proc. 1085, 1086;
OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
) Gov. Code 6250 et seq.)
Respondent.
)
)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2~
.:.-,
-------------- )
'
25_,
26-,
!....:,~.
2
2g-r-_
,
'
~-
I,I
288489
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The City of Los Angeles, acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power (LADWP) files this complaint and petitions this court for writ of mandate to
prevent the release of its customers' confidential personal information by the
5
'6
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) to the San Diego Union-
Tribune, LLC (Requestor), pursuant to a California Public Records Act (CPRA), Gov.
Code 6250 et seq., request. MWD intends to release the names and home addresses of
9
10
LADWP customers that participated in MWD's Turf Removal Rebate Program (Turf
11
Program) to Requestor, a major metropolitan newspaper, for potential publication. None
12
13
ofLADWP's customers were told that they had waived their constitutional right to
14
privacy by accepting this government-funded rebate money to help conserve water. Not
15
only that, but LADWP customers were not given notice that their information might be
16
17
disclosed, and did not consent to this disclosure. The LADWP brings this "Reverse-
18
CPRA" action pursuant to Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012)
19
202 Cal.App.4th 1250.
20
21
II. PARTIES
22
2. Petitioner is and was, at all relevant times, a municipal utility that purchases water from
23
Respondent, who funds Respondent's water conservation programs, and whose
24
customers participated in Respondent's water conservation programs, including the Turf
25,.)
26'
Program, which paid money to Petitioner's customers to replace lawn with artificial
2l)
grass or drought-friendly landscaping.
28"
c)
2
288489
3. Respondent is and was, at all relevant times, a regional water wholesaler that delivers
water to twenty-six cities and water agencies serving nineteen million people in six
counties. Respondent is funded by water purchases from its member agencies.
Respondent helps its member agencies to develop increased water conservation,
recycling, storage, and other resource-management programs.
4. Requestor is and was, at all relevant times, a media company that submitted a CPRA
request to Respondent for information, including names and addresses, of all individuals
10
that received money from the Turf Program.
11
III.
12
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13
5. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this court because this action arises under
14
California state law, Respondent resides in the County of Los Angeles, and
15
. Respondent's actions occurred and continue to occur in theCounty of Los Angeles.
16
IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
17
18
(Violation of Cal. Const., art. I, 1)
19
6. MWD funded, created, and operated its Turf Program in part as a response to Governor
20
Jerry Brown's April 1, 2014 executive order that California is in a drought and 50
21
22
million square feet of lawn and ornamental turf must be replaced with drought tolerant
23
landscapes. (Ex. A.) The Tur.fProgram was the largest of its kind in the nation, and has
24
been so successful that MWD has stated it had achieved its program goal of stimulating
c,::
25. !
interest in turf removal to the point that government incentives were no longer
26'"
c.:
necessary for the long term. (Ex. B.) The program totaled $450 million in funds, will
27"- . .
'
remove over 150 million square feet of turf in Southern California, and will save 80,000
r ..
..~ -
r288489
acre-feet of water per year. That is equal to the amount of water used by 160,000
1
2
households in one year. (Id.) All funds were exhausted on July 8, 2015. (Id.)
7. City of Los Angeles residents alone reached half of Governor Jerry Brown's statewide
turf replacement goal. With only 10% of the state's population, Los Angeles residents
will successfully remove almost 25 million square feet of turf by the end ofsummer.
(Ex. C.) Approximately 7,800+ Los Angeles residents participated in the Turf Program,
with the assistance of an estimated 60 private landscaping companies that were able to
9
10
directly receive the rebate for their work. (Decl. of David Wright, p. 2; Ex. C.)
11
Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that approximately 20% of
12
13
Respondent's Turf Program recipients were LADWP customers. (Decl. of David
14
Wright, p. 2.)
15
8. Respondent was created by an Act of the California Legislature in 1928 to build and
16
17
operate the Colorado River Aqueduct, and is the largest wholesale water agency in the
18
nation. (<http://www.mwdh20.com/>.) Respondent is a government,agency because it is
19
a cooperative of twenty-six member agencies including cities and water agencies that
20
21
purchase varying amounts of water each year that will eventually sold to a normal
22
person, or retail customer. (Id.) All retail customers belonging to one of Respondent's
23
twenty-six member agencies were eligible for the Turf Program. (Id.) Each member
24
25-.-,i
26 --
agency had a contract with MWD that governed the ability of that member agency's
I
customers to participate in the Turf Program. (Decl. of David Wright, p. 2.) Petitioner
27,_)
and Respondent's contract regarding the Turf Program stated that Petitioner's
28-
.~
'j
_1288489
confidential customer information could not be released by Respondent. (Ex. D.)

4
9. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent's Turf
Program issued rebates on a first-come, first-served basis until funding was exhausted.
'3
(Ex. E.) Rebates were capped to a maximum amount for some addresses and some
4
5
applicants, later in the Turf Program. and $6,000 per residential address. (Ex. F.)
Respondent reserved the right to verify and inspect the removal of turf grass, and
required recipients to adhere to their water agency's rebate terms and conditions, as well
8
9
as their local and city landscape ordinances. (Ex. E.) Applicants were able to submit the
10
application online, and were required to provide proof they were customers of a member
11
agency with a utility bill. (<http://www.mwdh20.com/>; Ex. F.) Rebates were mailed
12
13
after proof of installation and documentation, including numerous photos, was
14
submitted and approved. (Ex. E.)
15
10. Petitioner is informed and believes~ and thereon alleges, that only some applicants were
16
17
to make a five-year commitment for the turf to be removed, because not all application
18
materials required the five-year commitment. (Decl. of David Wright, p. 3; Ex. G.)
19
Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that online applicants were not
20
~ommitment,
21
required to make a five-year
22
application received notice that a five-year commitment was required. (Id.) Further,
23
but some applicants that submitted a paper
Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that early applicants may have
24
25 . '
26 .
been required to make a five-year commitment, but later applicants were not required to
make a five:..year commitment. (Id.) No applicant was asked to make the installation
: ,I)
27 ,~)
permanent to the property or alter their utility bills in any way. (Ex. E, F, and G.)
28'
5
_1288489
11. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that nowhere in
Respondent's Turf Program materials, application, fact sheet, or web site did
Respondent indicate that the applicant's name and address would be released to
the public. Respondent did not give any notice or obtain consent from any
applicant that in exchange for this go,:,ernment-funded money, the applicants
agreeing to waive their right to privacy.
12. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on or a~ound May 19,
10
2015, MWD received a CPRA request regarding its Turf Program from Morgan Cook, a
11
reporter for Requestor (Ex. H.) Requestor asked for electronic records regardin'g the
12
13
Turf Program, including at least fifteen data fields such as the name of the recipient;
14
date of award; street address of recipient; city of recipient;, zip code of recipient; county
15
of recipient; name of contact person/applicant; type of recipient (bus'iness, single-family
16'
17
residential, etc.); description of recipient; amount of award; and description of turf
18
removal project approved for incentive (square footage to be removed, etc.). (Id.)
19
13. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent did not
20
provide any notice to Turf Program applicants that their information would be disclosed
21
22
to a third party, or that their information'would be disclosed to a newspaper for potential
23
publication pursuant to a CPRA request. (<http://www.mwdh20.com/>; Ex. E, F, and
24
25--
G.) Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent did not
26'"
provide any notice to Turf Program rebate recipients that as a result of participation in
27( ,
28'
the Turf Program, Petitioner's customer's confidential information would be disclosed
j. :
6
i..' ! 288489
".
1
to a third party, or that their information would be disclosed to a newspaper for potential
publication pursuant to a CPRA request. (Id.)
3
14. Petitioner inadvertently became aware of this CPRA request on or about June 2, 2015.
4
5
(Decl. of David Wright, p. 4.) Respondent informed Petitioner of the request. (Id.)
Petitioner determined that the names and addresses of its customers are confidential in
7
combination with rebate amounts, and did not disclose its customer names and address
in response to a separate and different CPRA request. (Id.)
9
10
15. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on or around June 29,
11
2015, MWD provided approximately sixteen data fields to Requestor. (Ex. I.) Petitioner
12
13
is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that MWD redacted all of the data with
14
the names of the applicant (as opposed to recipient of the rebate). (Id.) Petitioner is
15
informed and believes, and thereon alleges that MWD disclosed street addresses at the
16
17
general city block number level. (Id.) Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon
18
alleges, that MWD also redacted the names of recipients (as opposed to applicant) from
19
the responsive records, except for where

a third-party contractor, such
as Turf
.
,
20
21
Terminators, was paid directly. (Id.) Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon
22
alleges, that the names of third-party contractors and their full contact information was
23
disclosed. (Id.)
24
. (.:.:
25,. i
~.
16. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on or about July 7, 2015,
26'
Requestor responded that the records provided on or about June 29,2015 were
(..=.)
27;:)
28 '..
insufficient. (Ex. J.) Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
l~..:
I 288489
Requestor reiterated its request for installation street addresses numbers; first and last ,.
names of all applicants; and first and last names of all recipients of the award. (Id.)
17. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on or around July 14, 2015,
Petitioner met with Respondent and objected to the disclosure of its customer's name
and address, and cited various federal and state laws to support its claim of customer
privacy. (Decl. of David Wright, p. 4.) MWD disagreed with LADWP's understanding
of the law. (Id.)
9
10
18. On July 29, 2015, Respondent informed Petitioner that it intended to release all
11
responsive records on August 7, 2015. (Ex. K.)
12
19. The California Constitution gives each citizen an "inalienable right" to pursue and
13
14
obtain privacy in article I, 1: "All people are by nature free and independent and have
15
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, .
16
17
possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and
18
privacy." (Cal. Const., art. 1, 1.)
19
20. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent has an
20
21
obligation to comply with the California Constitution and protect all persons from
22
disclosure of information that would invade their privacy or compromise their personal
23
. safety. Respondent's intended disclosure of Petitioner's customer's names and
24
25,. .,i
addresses violates these laws because Respondent did not provide any notice to
Petitioner's customers regarding the potential or intended disclosure of their information
27
-' )
at the time of application to the program. Petitioner's customers may never have
28 "
....
)
8
VI 288489
participated in the Turf Program if they had known their names and addresses could be
published in a newspaper.
21. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respon'dent also failed to
provide notice to Petitioner's customers after their applications were accepted to the
Turf Program. Respondent should have provided notice to all participants regarding
their determination that their program and rebate information is not protected from
8
9
disclosure, including details about how much rebate money they were given, how much
10
square footage was replaced, and which third-party contractor that they may have hired.
11
22. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent also failed to
12
13
obtain consent from Petitioner's customers regarding the release of their information to
14
this specific CPRA request, or give them an opportunity to object to the release of their
15
information.
16
17
23. Furthermore, Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent
18
failed to provide Petitioner any advance notice that Petitioner's customers' information
19
would be disclosed. Petitioners encouraged Petitioner's customers to participate in both
20
turf replacement programs offered by Respondent and Petitioner. Petitioner basically
21
22
had a contractual relationship with Respondent in regards to the execution of the Turf
23
Program. Petitioner is obliged to maintain the confidentiality of its customers'
24
information and Respondent owes Petitioner's Customers the same duty in this instance.
25"
26"
24. Allowing Respondent's disclosure of this information would deny Petitioner and
27(,
28 '
J "
(:)
I) 1 288489
Petitioner's customers the opportunity to object to this release or obtain a judicial

determination regarding their private interests in non-disclosure. The disclosure of this
9
information and may cause Petitioner's customers to suffer irreparable harm and
possible great injury.
25. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to the filing of this petition by
objecting to Respondent and demanding that the names and addresses of its customers
remain redacted.
26. At all times mentioned, Respondent has been able to exercise the discretion to withhold
these records. Notwithstanding such ability, and despite Petitioner's demand for
9
10
Respondent to withhold the records, Respondent continues to fail and refuse to redact
11
the names and addresses of Petitioner's customers.

12
13
27. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
14
other than the relief sought in this petition, because pursuant to the CPRA, no other
15
judicial, administrative, or contractual remedy is available to Petitioner. Furthermore,
16
17
release of the names and addresses would render any subsequent judicial,
18
administrative, or contractual remedy moot.
19
v.
20
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Violation of Gov. Code 6250, et seq.)
21
28. Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by this reference all of the allegations in
22
paragraphs 1 through 27
23
inclus~ve,
of this Petition as if fully set forth herein..
29. The CPRA was enacted in 1968 to promote government accountability, but expressly
24
25'.,j
recognized that every individual's right to privacy: "In enacting this chapter, the
26"
Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access
27.-"
I.,.;)
28",
to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and
t, .:
,"
i.....
10
I- "
i"
288489
necessary right of every person in this state." (Gov. Code 6250.) Therefore, the CPRA
may permit access to by any member of the public to public records created by public
employees, but it does not allow for the public to access records pertaining to private
individuals.
5
6
30. Petitioner is informed and believes,
a~d
thereon alleges, that Respondent intends to
disclose the names'and addresses of private individuals. (Ex. K.) Requestor is not
8
9
seeking records that relate to MWD's conduct as a government agency in creating,
10
operating, or granting funds under the Turf Program. These are not public records
11
because the names and addresses of private customers to a public utility have nothing to
12
do with the conduct of the people's business.
13
14
31. On July 18, 1989, actress Rebecca Schaeffer was murdered in front of her West,
15
Hollywood apartment by a man who had been stalking her for three years, as reported
16
17
by the Los Angeles Times in over seventeen published articles. (Ex. L.) After
18
unsuccessfully wandering around Ms. Schaeffer's neighborhood in an effort to locate
19
her, the murderer obtained her home address by paying $250 to a detective agency in
20
Tucson. (ld.) The murderer represented himself as an old friend that wanted to get back
21
22
in touch with her. (Id.) The detective agent simply went to the California Department of
23
Motor Vehicles, filled out a form, paid approximately $1, and was given Ms.
24(,-.
Schaeffer's home address. (ld.; Ex. M; Senator Sher, Sen. Judiciary Committee,
25--,
26-'-
analysis of Assem. Bill No. 448 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) p. 4.)
(I..
27(,
32. The Request does not fit any of the exceptions in Government Code 6254.16, which
28-,
i.
~'
(: i
states as follows (please note, "or" does not mean "and"):

11
~_.
!,
,f! 288489
VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR'WRIT OF MANDATE FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require the disclosure of the name~
credit history~ utility usage data~ home address~ or telephone number of utility
customers of local agencies~ except that disclosure of name~ utility usage data~
and the home address of utility customers of local agencies shall be made
available upon request as follows:
(a) To an agent or authorized family member of the person to whom the
information pertains.
(b) To an officer or employee of another governmental agency when necessary
for the performance of its official duties.
(c) Upon court order or the request of a law enforcement agency relative to an
ongoing investigation.
(d) Upon determination by the local agency that the utility customer who is the
subject of the request has used utility services in a manner inconsistent with
applicable local utility usage policies.
(e) Upon determination by the local agency that the utility customer who is the
subject of the request is an elected or appointed official with authority to
determine the utility usage policies of the local agency~ provided that the home
,address of an appointed official shall not be disclosed without his or her consent.
(t) Upon determination by the local agency that the public interest in disclosure
of the information clearly outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure."
(Emphasis added.) (Gov. Code 6254.16.)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
33. Petitioner is informed and believes~ a.nd thereon
alleges~
that Respondent has an
16
obligation to comply with the CPRA by withholding the names and address of
17
, Petitioner~s customers. Respondent has an obligation to comply with Government Code
18
19
'6254.16 and protect municipal utility customers from disclosure of information that
20
would invade their privacy or compromise their personal safety.
21
22
34. Petitioner is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Respondent~s intended
23
disclosure of Petitioner's customers' names and address on August 7,2015 violates
24
Government Code
26"
35. The CPRA expressly exempts residence addresses from disclosure in numerous
27-"-28'
j',-
6254.16.
instances, as follows:
II
12
iJ 288489
1. Gov. Code 6253(f) for arrestees and vict~ms of crime;

2. Gov. Code 6254(u) for prosecutors, public defenders, peace officers, judges, court
commissioners, and magistrates;
3. Gov. Code 6254.1 for Department of Housing and Community Development and
Department of Motor Vehicles;
. 4. Gov. Code 6254.21 for elected or appointed officials and their spouses and
children on the Internet, which includes state constitutional officers, members of the
Legislature, judges and court commissioners, district attorneys, public defenders,
members of a city council, members of a board of supervisors, appointees of the
Governor, appointees of the Legislature, mayors, city attorneys, police chiefs and
sheriffs, a public safety official, as defined in
5. Gov. Code 6254.24, state administrative law judges, federal judges and federal
defenders, and members of the United States Congress and appointees of the
President;
6. Gov. Code 6254.3 for state employees and employees of a school district or county
office of education; and
7. Gov. Code 6254.4 for voter registration information.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8'
9
10
11
12
36. Petitioner is entitled to mandamus and to file this "Reverse CPRA" action pursuant to
13
14
Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, in
15
order to compel Respondent to comply with the CPRA and protect the confidentiality of
16
Petitioner's customers' names and addresses.
17
18
37. Petitioner seeks a declaration from this court pursuant to Government Code 6258 that
19
it is unlawful for Respondent to disclose the name and address of Petitioner's customers
20
to Requestor.
21
22
38. Petitioner has performed all conditions precedent to the filing of this petition by
23
objecting to Respondent and demanding that the names and addresses of its customers
24
()
25" i
26",
remain redacted.
39. At all times mentioned, Respondent has been able to exercise the discretion to withhold
C,~:
27, i,...
, these records. Notwithstanding such" ability, and despite Petitioner's demand for
28',
I' _
(:
!
.',
r 288489
13
Respondent to withhold the records, Respondent continues to fail and refuse to redact
the names and addresses of Petitioner's customers.
40. Petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
4
5
other than the relief sought in this petition, because pursuant to the CPRA, no other
judicial, administrative, or contractual remedy is available to Petitioner: Furthermore,
release of the names and addresses would render any subsequent judicial,
administrative, or contractual remedy moot.
10
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays:

12
1. That the court issue a preemptory writ in the first instance commanding respondent to
13
14
comply with the California Constitution and the CPRA and protect the confidentiality of
15

16
17
2. That the court, alternatively, first issue an alternative writ commanding respondent to
18
19
Petitioner's customers' names and addresses; or, in the alternative, show cause why it
20
should not do so, and thereafter issue a peremptory writ commanding respondent to
21
22
23
24
3. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
25.. :
26' II
27;:1 Ii
28"
r')
II
14
I) 1 288489
1
2
DATED: July 3,0,2015
MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney

RICHARD M. BROWN, General Counsel,
Water and Power
RICHARD TOM, Assistant General Counsel
JULIE RILEY, Deputy City Attorney
'
d
6
7
I~---
B:
8
9
10
jJ.,
TINA SHIM
Deputy City Attorney
Attorney for Petitioner, CITY OF LOS

ANGELES acting by and through the LOS
ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER
AND POWER
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
c::
25.. ,
26'
!.....~.
27( .
28'
\' ......
iJ!
15
288489
VERIFICATION
2
3
4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
7
8
)
)
)ss.
)
)
)
I, the undersigned, say: I am the Interim Chief Administrative Officer of Plaintiff CITY OF
9
LOS ANGELES for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in the above entitled action; I
10
11
have read the foregoing VERIFIED COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
12
FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and know the contents thereof; and that the
13
same is true of my own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated upon my
14
information or belief, and as to those matters that I believe them to be true.
15
16
I, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
17
18
. Executed on July 29,2015 at Los Angeles, California.
19
20
21
22
23
24
l._ .'
25'
26:
'.~ .~
27:2K!'
1
!. .fi
288383
VERIFICATION OF DAVID WRIGHT
DQ~INAL
~TIORNEY
FOR COURT USE ONLY
OR PARTY WITHOUT ATIORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address):
Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney

Richard M. Brown, General Counsel, Water and Power
TINA SHIM, Deputy City Attorney (SBN 233910)
III N. Hope'Street, Rrn 340, Los Angeles, CA 90012
FILED
213 367-2372
FAX NO. 213 367-4588
ATIORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff City of Los Ai:lgeles
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF Los Angeles
STREET ADDRESS: 111 N. Hill Street
TELEPHONE NO.:
superior Court Of Callfornlll

COlmty Of Los Aneeles
JUL 30 1015
MAILING ADDRESS:
BRANCH
N."~
CASE NAME:
Shem K. ~" vull:erlClerk
Los An 1es, CA 90012

Central istrict
15
Cit)' of Los Angeles, acting by and through the LOs
CITY AND ZIP CODE:
' Deputy
--
D { 'U 0- ,.9
By'
Angeles Department of Water and Power v. Metropolitan

Water District of Southern California
CIVil CASE COVER SHEET
Complex Case uesignation
Unlimited
Limited
D
(Amount
~
(Amount
Counter
Jomder
CASE NUMBER:
fJ
~ ~
....
D:
[2Sl
JUDGE:
demanded
exceeds $25,000)
demanded is
Filed with first appearance by defendant
DEPT:
$25,000 or less)
(Cal. Rules' of Court, rule 3.402)
Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort
Contract
Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
(Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Auto (22)
Breach of contract/warranty (06)
D
AntitrustlTrade regulation (03)
Uninsured motorist (46)
Rule 3.740 collections (09)
o
o
Other PIIPDIWD (Personal Injury/Property

DamagelWrongful Death) Tort
Asbestos (04)
Product liability (24)
Medical malpractice (45)
Other PIIPDIWD (23)
Non.PI/PDIWD (Other) Tort
o
oo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Other collections (09)

Insurance coverage (18)
Other contract (37)

Real Property
Eminent domain/Inverse
condemnation (14)
Wrongful eviction (33)
D
D
Business tort/unfair business practice (07)

Other real property (26)
Civil rights (08)
Unlawful Detainer
Defamation (13)
Commercial (31)
Fraud (16)
Residential (32)
IZl
Construction defect (10)

Mass tort (40)
Securities litigation (28)

EnvironmentalfToxic tort (30)
Insurance coverage claims arising from the

above listed provisionally complex case
types (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
Enforcement of judgment (20)
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
RICO(27)
Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
0
D
D
D
Intellectual property (19)

Professional negligence (25)
Other non-PIIPDIWD tort (35)
Employment
Wrongful tennination (36)
Other employment (15)
2.
D
D
D
D
D
Drugs (38)
Judicial Review
Asset forfeiture (05)
Petition re: arbitration award (11)
~ Writ of mandate (02)
Other judicial review' (39)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition

Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Other petition (not specified'above) (43)
This case
is
is not
complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional jUdicial management:
a.
b.
c.
Large number of separately represented parties
d.
EX1ensive motion practice raising difficult o~ novel

issues that will be time-consuming to resolve
e. D
Substantial amount of documentary evidence
f.
3.
Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.O monetary
4.
Number of causes of action (specify):
Large number of witnesses

Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
b.~ nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief
c. Dpunitive
1Zl
5. This case D is
is not a class action suit.
'6. (!~ there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case.
Date!
July 30, 2015
'TINA SHIM
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)
i).'
NOTICE
..Elaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
(.under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
jn sanctions.
.
- File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
-ilf;this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve copy of this cover sheet on all
.Qther parties to the action or proceeding .
'.Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes onlv,
.
Forni Adopted for Mandatory Use
Judicial Council of California
CM i 010 [Rev. JUly 1, 2007]
I"ae1012
CIVil CASE COVER SHEET
Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740;

Cal Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10
www.coultinfo.ca.gov
SHORT TITLE:
f Souther.n
LADWP v. Metropolitan Water District Q
Cal,
forn .CaASE N~MBER
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND

STATEMENT OF LOCATION
(CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION)
This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.3 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Item I. Check the types of hearing and fill in the estimated length of hearing expected for this case:
JURY TRIAL?
YES
CLASS ACTION?
YES LIMITED CASE? YES
..:.H:.:=O""U""R""S:....'...::D:.:..A,-,-Y.:::S
TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL
Item II. Indicate the correct district and courthouse location (4 steps -If you checked "Limited Case", skip to Item III, Pg. 4):
Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet form, find the main Civil Case Cover Sheet heading for your
case in the left margin below, and, to the right in Column A, the Civil Case Cover Sheet case type you selected.
Step 2: Check smt Superior Court type of action in Column B below which best describes the nature of this case.
Step 3: In Column C, circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type of action you have
checked. For any exception to the court location, see Local Rule 2.3.
Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see Column C below)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Class actions must be filed in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, central district.
May be filed in central (other county, or no bodily injury/property damage).
Location where cause of action arose.
Location where bodily injury, death or damage occurred.
Location where performance required or defendant resides.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle.

Location where petitioner resides.
Location wherein defendanVrespondent functions wholly.
Location where one or more of the parties reside.
Location of Labor Commissioner Office
.
Mandatory Filing Location (Hub Case)
Step 4: Fill in the information requested on page 4 in Item III; complete Item IV. Sign the declaration.
Auto (22)
A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personallnjury/Property DamagelWrongful Death
1.,2.,4.
Uninsured Motorist (46)
A7110 Personallnjury/Property DamagelWrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist
1., 2., 4.
A6070 Asbestos Property Damage
2.
A7221 Asbestos - PersonallnjurylWrongful Death
2.
Product Liability (24)
A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental)
1.,2.,3.,4.,8.
o
o
A7210 Medical Malpractice - Physicia-ns & Surgeons \
Medical Malpractice (45)
1.,4.
A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malp'ractice
1.,4.
Asbestos (04)
Other Personal
Injury Property
Damage Wrongful
Death (23)
L;ACIV 109 (Rev 3/15)

l()rC Approved 03-04
o
o
A7250 ~remises Liability (e.g., slip and fall)
A7270 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
A7220 Other Personallnjury/Property DamagelWrongful Death
A7230 Intentional Bodily Injury/Property DamagelWrongful Death (e.g.,

assault, vandalism, etc.)
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM

AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION
1.,4.
~
1.,4.
1.,3.
1.,4.
Local Rule 2.3
Page 1 of4
SHORT TITLE:
LADWP v. Metropolitan Water District
.~
CASE NUMBER
of Southern Califor ia
"'
Civil Case Cover Sheet

Category No.
."'i"'"
.t,-
,~-
B ..
,
Type of Action~r;'
(Check only. one)
C Applicable
.Reasons - See Step 3
Above
Business Tort (07)
A6029 Other CommerciaUBusiness Tort (not fraud/breach of contract)
1.,3.
CDt-
Civil Rights (08)
A6005 Civil Rights/Discrimination
1.,2.,3.
-0
~a..
Defamation (13)
A6010 Defamation (slander/libel)
1.,2.,3.
.ED)
e
Fraud (16)
A6013 Fraud (no contract)
1.,2.,3.
A6017 Legal Malpractice
1.,.2.,3.
A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal)
1.,2.,3.
Other (35)
A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort
2.,3.
Wrongful Termination (36)
A6037 Wrongful Termination
1.,2.,3.
A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case
1.,2.,3.
A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals
10.
A6004 Breach of RentaULease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful

eviction)
2.,5.
A6008 ContractlWarranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence)
A6019 Negligent Breach of ContractlWarranty (no fraud)
A6028 Other Breach of ContractlWarranty (not fraud or negligence)
~1S
c.~
._-
~::I
::I
Ci ~
53:
I!!CD CD
a..g'
co ."E
Professional Negligence (25)
zo
CD
>'ii.
0
Other Employment (15)
Breach of Contractl Warranty

(06)
(not insurance)
-u
E
e
1.,2.,5.
1.,2.,5.
A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff
2.,5.,6,11
A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case
2.,5, 11
A6034 Collections Case-Purchased Debt (Charged Off Consumer Debt

Purchased on or after Januarv 1 2014\
5,6,11
A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex)
1.,2.,5.,8.
A6009 Contractual Fraud
1.,2.,3.,5.
A6031 Tortious Interference
1.,2.,3.,5.
A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not breachlinsurance/fraud/negligence)
1.,2.,3.,8.
Eminent Domain/Inverse
Condemnation (14)
A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation
Wrongful Eviction (33)
A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case
2.,6.
A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure
2.,6.
A6032 Quiet Title
2.,6.
A6060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure)
2.,6.
Unlawful Detainer-Commercial
(31)
A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction)
2.,6.
Unlawful Detainer-Residential
132\
A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction)
2.,6.
Unlawful DetainerPost-Foreclosure 134\
A6020F Unlawful Detainer-Post-Foreclosure
2.,6.
Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (38)
A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs
2.,6.
Collections (09)
Insurance Coverage (18)
Other Contract (37)
~
CD
2.,5.
Number of parcels___
2.
c.
a..
iii
CD
0:::
Other Real Property (26)
(:::)
':;l
e
'iii
a;
e)
::I
3!as-.l
e
:::;).
!"M)
LAGP.1 109 (Rev 3/15)

LA~g-f'pproved 03-04

Local Rule 2.3

Page 2 of 4
SHORT TITLE:
.J
CASE NUMBER
of Southern Cal; forll; a
Asset Forfeiture (05)
A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case
2.,6.
Petition re Arbitration (11)
A6115 Petition to C'ompeVConfinnNacate Arbitration
2.,5.
A6151 Writ - Administrative Mandamus
2.,8.
Writ of Mandate (02)
o
o
Jilf..
A6152 Writ - Mandamus on limited Court Case Matter
2.
A6153 Writ - Other limited Court Case Review
2.
Other Judicial Review (39)
A6150 OtherWritlJudicial Review
2.,8.
AntitrustlTrade Regulation (03)
A6003 AntitrustlTrade Regulation
1.,2.,8.
Construction Defect (10)
A6007 Construction Defect
1.,2.,3.
Claims Involving Mass Tort

(40)
A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort
1.,2.,8.
Securities litigation (28)
A6035 Securities litigation Case
1.,2.,8.
c
o
"iii
Toxic Tort
Environmental (30)
A6036 Toxic TortlEnvironmental
1.,2.,3.,8.
Insurance Coverage Claims

from Complex Case (41)
A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)
1.,2.,5.,8.
A6141 Sister State Judgment
2.,9.
A6160 Abstract of Judgment
2.,6.
Enforcement
of Judgment (20)
o
o
o
o
o
o
A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations)
2.,9.
A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes)
2.,8.
~
CJ)
;:
:::;
I i.
E
"iii
";;
Q.
RICO (27)
Other Complaints
(Not Specified Above) (42)
Partnership Corporation
Governance (21)
Other Petitions (Not

Specified Above) (43)
LAq1Y.109 (Rev 3/15)

LASC...f-pproved 03-04
1,_,_ I
A6114 Petition/Certificate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax
2.,8.
A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case
2.,8.,9.
A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case
1.,2.,8.
A6030 Declaratory Relief Only
1.,2.,8.
A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment)
2.,8.
o
o
A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tortlnon-complex)
1.,2.,8.
A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tortlnon-complex)
1.,2.,8.
A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case
2.,8.
o
o
o
A6121 Civil Harassment
2:,3.,9.
A6123 Workplace Harassment
2.,3.,9.
A6124 Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Case
2.,3.,9.
A6190 Election Contest
2.
A6110 Petition for Change of Name
2.,7.
A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law
2.,3.,4.,8.
A6100 Other Civil Petition
2.,9.

Local Rule 2.3

Page 3 of4 (
SHORT TITLE:
'
CASE NUMBER
of Southern Cal ifor 1 a
Item III. Statement of Location: Enter the address of the accident, party's residence or place of business, performance, or other
circumstance indicated in Item II., Step 3. on Page 1, as the proper reason for filing in the court location you selected.
ADDRESS:
REASON: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown

under Column C for the type of action that you have selected for
this case.
p 1. 0 2. 0 3. 04.05.06.07.
08.0 9.010.011.
STATE:
CITY:
Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cal forni a

700 N. Alameda Street
Los 'Ange1es , CA 90012
ZIP CODE:
Item IV. Declaration ofAssignment: I declare under penalty of pe~ury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct and that the above-entitled matter is properly filed for assignment to the Stanley Mask
Central
courthouse in the
District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., 392 et seq., and Local
Rule 2.3, subd.(a).
Dated:
July 30, 2015
PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY
COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE:
1.
Original Complaint or Petition.
2.
If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk.
3.
Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-01 O.
4.
Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev.
03/15).
5.
Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived.
6.
A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form CIV-01 0, if the plaintiff or petitioner is a
minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a summons.
7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum
must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case.
(::)
LAf:H/109 (Rev 3/15)

LA~R
',_.'
Approved 03-04

Local Rule 2.3

Page 4 of4

DWP-MWD Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DWP-MWD Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DORIGINAL

1 MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney (SBN 111529x)

Attorneys for Plaintiff, CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, acting by and ) Case No.

prevent the release of its customers' confidential personal information by the

Program) to Requestor, a major metropolitan newspaper, for potential publication. None

202 Cal.App.4th 1250.

Respondent, who funds Respondent's water conservation programs, and whose

grass or drought-friendly landscaping.

counties. Respondent is funded by water purchases from its member agencies.

Respondent helps its member agencies to develop increased water conservation,

recycling, storage, and other resource-management programs.

that received money from the Turf Program.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

. Respondent's actions occurred and continue to occur in theCounty of Los Angeles.

IV. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Cal. Const., art. I, 1)

Respondent's Turf Program recipients were LADWP customers. (Decl. of David

nation. (<http://www.mwdh20.com/>.) Respondent is a government,agency because it is

confidential customer information could not be released by Respondent. (Ex. D.)

after proof of installation and documentation, including numerous photos, was

submitted and approved. (Ex. E.)

required to make a five-year

but some applicants that submitted a paper

applicant that in exchange for this go,:,ernment-funded money, the applicants

agreeing to waive their right to privacy.

of recipient; name of contact person/applicant; type of recipient (bus'iness, single-family

residential, etc.); description of recipient; amount of award; and description of turf

to a third party, or that their information'would be disclosed to a newspaper for potential

publication pursuant to a CPRA request. (<http://www.mwdh20.com/>; Ex. E, F, and

the Turf Program, Petitioner's customer's confidential information would be disclosed

publication pursuant to a CPRA request. (Id.)

in response to a separate and different CPRA request. (Id.)

the responsive records, except for where

of the law. (Id.)

responsive records on August 7, 2015. (Ex. K.)

privacy." (Cal. Const., art. 1, 1.)

. safety. Respondent's intended disclosure of Petitioner's customer's names and

would be disclosed. Petitioners encouraged Petitioner's customers to participate in both

Program. Petitioner is obliged to maintain the confidentiality of its customers'

Petitioner's customers the opportunity to object to this release or obtain a judicial

possible great injury.

the names and addresses of Petitioner's customers.

judicial, administrative, or contractual remedy is available to Petitioner. Furthermore,

administrative, or contractual remedy moot.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Gov. Code 6250, et seq.)

of this Petition as if fully set forth herein..

to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and

30. Petitioner is informed and believes,

thereon alleges, that Respondent intends to

seeking records that relate to MWD's conduct as a government agency in creating,

do with the conduct of the people's business.

unsuccessfully wandering around Ms. Schaeffer's neighborhood in an effort to locate

analysis of Assem. Bill No. 448 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) p. 4.)

states as follows (please note, "or" does not mean "and"):

33. Petitioner is informed and believes~ a.nd thereon

that Respondent has an

, Petitioner~s customers. Respondent has an obligation to comply with Government Code

disclosure of Petitioner's customers' names and address on August 7,2015 violates

1. Gov. Code 6253(f) for arrestees and vict~ms of crime;

the names and addresses of Petitioner's customers.