Times?Mirror?Co.?v.?Superior?Court?(State?of?California)?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?1325?,?283?Cal.Rptr.?893;?813?P.2d?240 [No.?S014461. Jul?22,?1991.] TIMES?MIRROR?COMPANY,?Petitioner,?v.?THE?SUPERIOR?COURT?OF?SACRAMENTO?COUNTY,?Respondent;?THE?STATE?OF?CALIFORNIA?et?al.,?Real?Parties?in?Interest. (Superior?Court?of?Sacramento?County,?No.?505002,?Fred?K.?Morrison,?Judge.) (Opinion?by?Arabian,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?and?Baxter,?JJ.,?concurring.?Separate?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk,?J.,?with?Broussard,?J.,?concurring,?and?by?Kennard,?J.,?with?Broussard,?J.,?concurring.) COUNSEL Gibson,?Dunn?&?Crutcher,?Stephen?J.?Burns,?Rex?S.?Heinke,?Ragnhild?Reif,?Kelli?L.?Sager?and?Karen?N.?Fredericksen?for?Petitioner. Pillsbury,?Madison?&?Sutro,?Edward?P.?Davis,?Jr.,?Kevin?M.?Fong?and?Judy?Alexander?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Petitioner. No?appearance?for?Respondent. John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Robert?L.?Mukai,?Chief?Assistant?Attorney?General,?N.?Eugene?Hill,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?Richard?M.?Frank,?Cathy?A.?Neff?and?Ted?Prim,?Deputy?Attorneys?General,?for?Real?Parties?in?Interest. De?Witt?W.?Clinton,?County?Counsel?(Los?Angeles),?and?David?L.?Muir,?Deputy?County?Counsel,?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Real?Parties?in?Interest. OPINION ARABIAN,?J. This?case?arises?out?of?a?dilemma?inherent?in?the?very?nature?of?a?free?and?open?society.?An?informed?and?enlightened?electorate?is?essential?to?a?representative?democracy.?Yet?even?democratic?governments?[53?Cal.3d?1329]?require?some?degree?of?confidentiality?to?ensure,?among?other?things,?a?candid?exchange?of?ideas?and?opinions?among?responsible?officials.?This?tension?inevitably?leads?to?conflict,?and?conflict?invariably?leads?to?the?courthouse. The?question?before?us?is?whether,?under?the?California?Public?Records?Act?(Gov.?Code,???6250?et?seq.;?hereafter?the?Act),fn.?1?the?Governor?of?the?State?of?California?(Governor)?properly?refused?a?request?to?disclose?his?daily,?weekly?and?monthly?appointment?calendars?and?schedules.?For?the?reasons?set?forth?below,?we?conclude?that?the?records?were?properly?withheld. Factual?and?Procedural?Background In?August?1988,?a?reporter?for?the?Los?Angeles?Times?(Times)?wrote?the?Governor?requesting,?under?the?Act,?copies?of?his?”appointment?schedules,?calendars,?notebooks?and?any?other?documents?that?would?list?[the?Governor’s]?daily?activities?as?governor?from?[his]?inauguration?in?1983?to?the?present.”?The?Governor’s?legal?affairs?secretary?responded?that?the?information?requested?was?exempt?from?disclosure?under?section?6254,?subdivision?(l)?as?”correspondence?of?and?to?the?Governor?or?employees?of?the?Governor’s?office?….”fn.?2 After?its?request?to?reconsider?this?decision?was?denied,?the?Times?filed?suit?seeking?injunctive?and?declaratory?relief?to?obtain?disclosure?of?the?materials?requested.?In?opposition,?the?Governor?claimed?that?the?records?came?within?the?correspondence?exemption?of?section?6254,?subdivision?(l),?as?well?as?the?public?interest?exemption?of?section?6255,?which?applies?when?the?public?interest?in?nondisclosure?”clearly?outweighs”?the?public?interest?in?disclosure.fn.?3Specifically,?the?Governor?claimed?that?release?of?his?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?would?(1)?create?a?risk?to?his?personal?security,?and?(2)?inhibit?the?free?and?candid?exchange?of?ideas?necessary?to?the?decisionmaking?process. In?support?of?his?opposition,?the?Governor?submitted?several?declarations?explaining?the?process?by?which?his?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?[53?Cal.3d?1330]?are?created,?the?function?they?serve,?and?the?implications?of?their?public?disclosure.?Susan?Pederson,?the?Governor’s?scheduling?secretary,?explained?that?after?reviewing?requests?for?meetings?and?invitations,?she?drafts?a?”scheduling?memorandum”?which?is?then?reviewed?with?four?senior?staff?members?of?the?Governor’s?office.?A?final?scheduling?memorandum?and?a?”tentative?month-long?calendar”?are?then?prepared?in?consultation?with?the?Governor;?the?calendar?”is?a?schematic?representation?of?engagements?and?meetings?discussed?in?the?scheduling?memorandum.”?Thereafter,?a?finished?month-long?calendar?is?produced?which?identifies?the?Governor’s?”major?time?commitments?for?public?appearances?and?private?meetings.”?Copies?of?this?calendar?are?given?to?the?Governor,?a?”limited?number”?of?members?of?the?Governor’s?office,?the?Director?of?Finance,?the?Governor’s?security?director?and?those?responsible?for?the?Governor’s?transportation. Each?week?the?scheduling?secretary?also?formulates?a?schedule?for?the?two?upcoming?weeks,?which?incorporates?information?from?the?monthly?calendar?as?well?as?more?recently?approved?appointments?and?appearances.?The?schedule?for?the?first?week?is?designated?”final,”?and?that?for?the?second?is?designated?”advance.”?Lastly,?a?complete?daily?schedule?is?prepared?on?the?afternoon?or?evening?prior?to?each?working?day;?the?daily?schedule?”accounts?for?all?the?Governor’s?time?from?his?departure?from?home?in?the?morning?until?his?departure?from?the?office?in?the?evening.”?The?two-week?and?daily?schedules?are?distributed?to?the?same?persons?as?the?monthly?calendar.?According?to?Ms.?Pederson,?all?persons?receiving?the?monthly,?two-week?and?daily?schedules?”do?so?with?the?understanding?that?they?are?to?treat?the?schedule[s]?and?any?accompanying?material?as?confidential,?and?destroy?the?schedule?once?they?have?completed?their?use?of?it.”fn.?4?Ms.?Pederson?did?not?indicate?in?her?declaration?whether?or?to?what?extent?copies?of?the?final?calendars?and?schedules?are?normally?retained?by?herself,?the?Governor?or?anyone?else?in?the?Governor’s?office.fn.?5 The?level?of?detail?set?forth?in?the?daily?and?two-week?schedules?is?exhaustive.?Each?reflects,?for?example,?”the?timing?and?details?of?the?Governor’s?arrivals?and?departures?everywhere?he?goes?in?the?course?of?his?day?[53?Cal.3d?1331]?…?whether?and?when?family?members?and?traveling?companions?will?be?with?him,?the?particular?aircraft?or?other?means?of?transportation?to?be?used,?names?of?pilots?and?drivers,?airport?gate?departures,?specific?hotel?accommodations,?[and]?automobile?and?other?ground?arrangements.”?Thus,?according?to?Ms.?Pederson,?the?schedules?and?calendars?necessarily?reflect?the?daily?”patterns?and?habits?of?the?Governor,”?including?the?occasions?”when?he?is?likely?to?be?alone.” Dennis?Williams,?the?director?of?security?for?the?Governor,?also?submitted?a?declaration.?According?to?Mr.?Williams,?disclosure?of?the?Governor’s?schedule?”at?any?time?in?advance?of?the?period?to?which?they?pertain?would?seriously?impair?the?ability?of?[his]?office?to?assure?the?Governor’s?security,?and?would?constitute?a?potential?threat?to?the?Governor’s?safety,?because?the?information?they?contain?will?enable?the?reader?to?know?in?advance?and?with?relative?precision?when?and?where?the?Governor?may?be?found,?those?persons?who?will?be?with?him,?and?when?he?will?be?alone.”?Even?disclosure?of?outdated?schedules?would?pose?a?a?security?risk,?in?Mr.?Williams’s?opinion,?because?they?would?”enable?the?reader?to?discern?characteristic?habits?and?activity?patterns?followed?by?the?Governor,?from?which?opportunities?for?access?to?the?Governor’s?person?may?be?surmised.” The?Governor?also?submitted?a?declaration?in?support?of?his?opposition?to?the?Times?complaint.?In?it?he?asserted?that?disclosure?of?his?calendars?and?schedules?would?”be?detrimental?to?the?substantial?public?interest?now?served?by?protection?of?the?confidential?decisionmaking?processes?of?[his]?office?….”?He?explained?that?he?had?always?considered?his?schedules?and?calendars?to?be?confidential?and?had?required?his?advisors?to?treat?them?as?such,?”because?of?the?essential?character?of?many?of?the?meetings?and?appointments?reflected?in?these?papers,?because?of?the?decision?making?reflected?in?…?these?papers,?and?because?of?concerns?pertaining?to?security.” Elaborating?upon?the?potentially?adverse?consequences?of?disclosure?on?the?decisionmaking?process,?the?Governor?noted?that?his?office?requires?him?to?meet?with?people?of?wide-ranging?views?on?a?multiplicity?of?subjects.?Because?of?the?frequent?sensitivity?of?the?subjects?under?discussion,?”it?is?necessary,”?he?stated,?”that?the?meetings?themselves?be?fundamentally?private,?so?that?those?present?may?feel?free?to?express?their?candid?opinions?to?me?and?so?that?I?can?be?assured?of?the?candor?of?their?expressions?….”?Routine?disclosure?of?the?identities?of?the?persons?with?whom?the?Governor?meets,?he?asserted,?would?inhibit?the?deliberative?process,?in?some?instances?by?discouraging?persons?from?attending?meetings,?in?others?by?leading?to?unwarranted?inferences?about?the?subject?under?discussion.?Furthermore,?the?Governor?argued,?although?the?calendars?and?schedules?contain?”facts”?[53?Cal.3d?1332]?rather?than?opinions?or?advice,?they?necessarily?reflect?the?Governor’s?”deliberative?judgment”?as?to?those?persons,?issues?or?events?he?considers?to?be?of?sufficient?significance?to?occupy?his?time,?and?those?he?does?not.?Thus,?the?Governor?claimed?that?disclosure?of?his?calendars?and?schedules?could?substantially?impair?the?quality?of?his?decisions?and?the?decisionmaking?process?of?his?office. The?Times’s?motion?for?injunctive?and?declaratory?relief?was?heard?on?November?22,?1988.?Following?the?hearing,?the?trial?court?denied?the?Times’s?motion?for?injunctive?relief?as?well?as?its?request?for?an?in?camera?review,?finding?that?the?records?were?exempt?from?disclosure?for?each?of?the?reasons?urged?by?the?Governor.?However,?the?Court?of?Appeal?reversed,?holding?that?the?records?did?not?constitute?correspondence?under?the?Act;?that?disclosure?would?not?implicate?the?deliberative?process?of?government?”because?information?relating?to?the?content?of?meetings?is?not?sought”;?and?that?any?security?risk?to?the?Governor,?however?slight,?could?not?be?evaluated?without?examining?the?documents?themselves.?Accordingly,?the?Court?of?Appeal?remanded?to?the?superior?court?”for?an?in?camera?review,?segregation?of?any?information?posing?a?legitimate?security?risk,?and?disclosure?of?all?nonexempt?material.” Because?we?agree?with?the?trial?court?that?the?public?interest?in?not?disclosing?the?records?clearly?outweighs?the?public?interest?in?disclosure?(??6255),?we?shall?reverse?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal. Discussion Scope?of?Review Before?turning?to?the?merits,?we?address?a?threshold?issue?concerning?the?applicable?scope?of?review.?[1a]?Relying?on?section?6259,?subdivision?(c)?and?Freedom?Newspapers,?Inc.?v.?Superior?Court?(1986)?186?Cal.App.3d?1102?[231?Cal.Rptr.?189]?(hereafter?sometimes?Freedom?Newspapers),?the?Attorney?General?contends?the?Times?can?prevail?only?if?the?trial?court?acted?in?excess?of?its?jurisdiction.?An?erroneous?interpretation?of?the?Act,?abuse?of?judicial?discretion?or?lack?of?substantial?evidence?to?support?the?judgment?would?not,?he?asserts,?justify?reversal?of?the?trial?court’s?decision.?We?disagree. Prior?to?1984,?review?of?a?trial?court?order?either?directing?disclosure?of?a?public?record?or?refusing?disclosure?was?by?appeal.?In?1984,?however,?the?Legislature?substituted?a?writ?procedure?for?the?appellate?process?by?amending?section?6259?to?provide?as?follows:?”In?an?action?filed?on?or?after?January?1,?1985,?an?order?of?the?court,?either?directing?disclosure?by?a?[53?Cal.3d?1333]?public?official?or?supporting?the?decision?of?the?public?official?refusing?disclosure,?is?not?a?final?judgment?or?order?within?the?meaning?of?Section?904.1?of?the?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?from?which?an?appeal?may?be?taken,?but?shall?be?immediately?reviewable?by?petition?to?the?appellate?court?for?the?issuance?of?the?extraordinary?writ?of?review?as?defined?in?Section?1067?of?the?Code?of?Civil?Procedure.”?(??6259,?subd.?(c);?Stats.?1984,?ch.?802,???1,?pp.?2804-2805.)fn.?6?Section?1067?of?the?Code?of?Civil?Procedure?states:?”The?writ?of?certiorari?may?be?denominated?the?writ?of?review.” In?Freedom?Newspapers,?Inc.?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?186?Cal.App.3d?1102,?the?Court?of?Appeal?considered?the?scope?of?review?available?under?a?writ?of?review?filed?pursuant?to?section?6259,?subdivision?(c).?In?that?case,?a?newspaper?had?filed?a?public-?records?request?for?certain?information?concerning?fees?paid?to?court-?appointed?lawyers?and?investigators?in?an?ongoing?murder?case.?The?trial?court?denied?the?request,?holding?that?the?public?interest?in?nondisclosure-the?defendant’s?right?to?a?fair?trial-outweighed?any?public?interest?in?disclosure. The?Court?of?Appeal?affirmed,?despite?the?majority’s?view?that?the?ruling?was?erroneous.?Citing?the?seminal?cases?of?Abelleira?v.?District?Court?of?Appeal?(1941)?17?Cal.2d?280,?288?[109?P.2d?942,?132?A.L.R.?715],?and?Auto?Equity?Sales,?Inc.?v.?Superior?Court?(1962)?57?Cal.2d?450,?454?[20?Cal.Rptr.?321,?369?P.2d?937],?the?court?noted?that?the?granting?of?a?writ?of?review?or?certiorari?is?generally?confined?to?circumstances?in?which?the?trial?court?has?exceeded?its?jurisdiction,?either?in?the?fundamental?sense?that?it?lacks?power?over?the?person?or?subject?matter?of?the?litigation,?or?in?the?broader?sense?that?its?act?exceeds?the?defined?power?of?the?court,?whether?that?power?be?defined?by?the?Constitution,?a?statute,?or?a?court-developed?rule?under?the?doctrine?of?stare?decisis.?By?that?standard,?the?Court?of?Appeal?concluded,?[53?Cal.3d?1334]?the?trial?court?had?not?exceeded?its?jurisdiction?as?no?statute,?constitutional?provision?or?clearly?controlling?precedent?based?on?the?Act?compelled?a?contrary?result.?(Freedom?Newspapers,?supra,?186?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1109.) The?Court?of?Appeal?in?this?matter?purported?to?distinguish?Freedom?Newspapers?on?the?ground?that?the?trial?court’s?decision?in?the?latter?case?was?merely?”arguably?incorrect,”?while?the?lower?court’s?ruling?here?was?”fundamentally?erroneous”?under?settled?law.?The?distinction?is?not?persuasive.?As?discussed?in?the?following?section,?the?question?of?access?to?the?Governor’s?personal?calendars?and?schedules?is?a?difficult?and?unsettled?legal?issue;?whatever?its?substantive?merits,?nothing?in?the?record?suggests?that?the?trial?court’s?decision?constituted?an?act?in?excess?of?jurisdiction.?(Abelleira?v.?District?Court?of?Appeal,?supra,?17?Cal.2d?at?p.?288.) Nevertheless,?we?are?not?persuaded?that?our?scope?of?review?is?as?limited?as?the?Governor?urges?or?as?the?Freedom?Newspapers?court?concluded.?Both?assume?that?by?use?of?the?term?”writ?of?review”?the?Legislature?clearly?and?unambiguously?intended?to?preclude?review?of?lower?court?orders?on?the?merits.?That?assumption?is?unwarranted.?Apart?from?providing?for?issuance?of?the?extraordinary?writ?of?review?as?defined?in?section?1067?of?the?Code?of?Civil?Procedure,?which?merely?states?that?”writ?of?review”?may?be?used?as?an?alternative?to?writ?of?certiorari,?section?6259,?subdivision?(c)?is?silent?as?to?the?scope?of?review?to?be?accorded?orders?under?the?Act. To?be?sure,?the?writ?of?review?is?traditionally?limited?to?acts?in?excess?of?jurisdiction.?(Abelleira?v.?District?Court?of?Appeal,?supra,?17?Cal.2d?228.)?[2]?[1b]?However,?the?legislative?history?of?the?1984?amendment?to?section?6259,?subdivision?(c)?reveals?that?the?exclusive?purpose?of?the?amendment?was?to?speed?appellate?review,?not?to?limit?its?scope.fn.?7?The?bill?which?contained?the?amendment,?Senate?Bill?No.?2222,?1983-1984?Regular?Session,?was?sponsored?by?a?news?organization,?the?California?Newspaper?Publishers’?Association.?It?was?inspired?by?a?case?in?which?a?newspaper?had?successfully?sued?in?the?superior?court?to?obtain?[53?Cal.3d?1335]?government?records,?but?was?forced?to?wait?several?years?while?the?case?was?on?appeal,?by?which?time?the?story?was?no?longer?newsworthy. The?perceived?evil?at?which?the?bill?was?aimed,?according?to?a?Senate?Judiciary?Committee?analysis,?was?”delays?of?the?appeal?process,?[by?means?of?which]?public?officials?are?frustrating?the?intent?of?the?laws?for?disclosure?….”?”The?sponsors?of?this?bill,”?the?analysis?continued,?”seek?to?correct?an?injustice?they?perceive?due?to?…?the?potential?for?…?public?agencies?to?delay?the?disclosure?of?public?documents.”?Accordingly,?the?amendment’s?goal?was?”to?prohibit?public?agencies?from?delaying?the?disclosure?of?public?records?by?appealing?a?trial?court?decision?and?using?continuances?in?order?to?frustrate?the?intent?of?the?Public?Records?Act.”?(Sen.?Com.?on?Judiciary,?Analysis?of?Sen.?Bill?No.?2222?(1983-1984?Reg.?Sess.).) The?synopsis?of?the?bill?prepared?for?the?Assembly?Committee?on?the?Judiciary?was?to?the?same?effect:?”The?bill?is?intended?to?expedite?appellate?review?of?judicial?rulings?relating?to?the?withholding?of?public?records?by?providing?for?the?review?to?be?by?petition?for?issuance?of?a?writ?rather?than?by?appeal.”?Although?the?Assembly?analysis?noted?that?writ?review?might?occasionally?result?in?a?summary?denial?rather?than?an?adjudication?on?the?merits,?there?is?no?indication?that?the?Legislature?intended?to?preclude?review?on?the?merits?altogether?in?every?case.?(Assem.?Com.?on?Judiciary,?Analysis?of?Sen.?Bill?No.?2222?(1983-1984?Reg.?Sess.)?Aug.?6,?1984.) Moreover,?we?believe?such?an?interpretation?to?be?more?fully?in?accord?with?the?Act’s?express?purpose?of?broadening?the?public’s?access?to?public?records.?(CBS,?Inc.?v.?Block?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?646,?651?[230?Cal.Rptr.?362,?725?P.2d?470].)?There?is?no?indication?that?the?Legislature,?in?amending?section?6259,?intended?sub?silentio?to?shelter?trial?court?orders,?particularly?those?denying?disclosure?of?public?records,?from?appellate?oversight.?Nor,?in?light?of?our?responsibility?to?avoid?absurd?results?(County?of?Sacramento?v.?Hickman,?supra,?66?Cal.2d?at?p.?849,?fn.?6),?can?we?believe?that?the?Legislature?could?have?intended?the?chaos?which?might?otherwise?result?from?a?construction?of?the?statute?disallowing?review?on?the?merits?of?conflicting?decisions?in?the?trial?courts. Finally,?we?note?that?effective?January?1,?1991,?the?Legislature?has?provided?that?orders?under?the?Act?”shall?be?immediately?reviewable?by?petition?to?the?appellate?court?for?issuance?of?an?extraordinary?writ.”?(??6259,?subd.?(c);?Stats.?1990,?ch.?908,???2.)?The?amendment?also?added?two?new?provisions:?(1)?the?petition?for?extraordinary?writ?must?be?filed?within?ten?days?after?receipt?of?notice?of?the?trial?court?order,?and?(2)?no?stay?of?the?trial?court?order?shall?be?permitted?”unless?the?petitioning?party?demonstrates?[53?Cal.3d?1336]?it?will?otherwise?sustain?irreparable?damage?and?probable?success?on?the?merits.”?(Ibid.) The?effect?of?the?1990?amendment?providing?for?review?by?”extraordinary?writ,”?including?presumably?writ?of?mandate,?is,?of?course,?to?make?it?plain?that?review?of?orders?subject?to?the?amendment?is?not?confined?to?acts?in?excess?of?jurisdiction.?The?analysis?of?the?bill?prepared?for?the?Assembly?Committee?on?the?Judiciary?indicates?that?the?recent?amendment?was?a?response?to?Freedom?Newspapers,?Inc.?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?186?Cal.App.3d?1102,?and?was?intended?to?overrule?that?decision?by?”clarifying”?that?the?purpose?of?writ?review?is?to?speed?appellate?review,?not?to?preclude?reviw?on?the?merits.?As?the?analysis?explains,?”[T]he?courts?[(an?apparent?reference?to?Freedom?Newspapers)]?…?have?narrowly?interpreted?[the?1984?amendment]?to?review?questions?of?jurisdiction?and?not?broader?as?intended?by?the?original?statute.?This?bill?expands?the?extraordinary?writ?by?clarifying?that?courts?can?rule?quickly?on?substantive?issues.”?(Assem.?Com.?on?Judiciary,?Analysis?of?Sen.?Bill?No.?2272?(1989-1990?Reg.?Sess.),?italics?added.) Thus,?while?logic?and?history?support?a?broad?interpretation,?we?need?not?ultimately?determine?the?meaning?of?the?1984?amendment;?its?replacement?makes?plain?the?Legislature’s?intent?that?trial?court?orders?under?the?Act?shall?be?reviewable?on?their?merits.?As?a?practical?matter,?therefore,?declining?to?reach?the?substantive?issues?presented?here?would?only?delay?their?resolution?to?a?future?day;?judicial?economy?and?the?significance?of?the?questions?presented?militate?in?favor?of?a?decision?sooner?rather?than?later.?Therefore,?as?we?have?in?the?past,?we?shall?conduct?an?independent?review?of?the?trial?court’s?ruling;?factual?findings?made?by?the?trial?court?will?be?upheld?if?based?on?substantial?evidence.?(CBS,?Inc.?v.?Block,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?pp.?650-651.) Disclosure?of?the?Records We?turn?to?the?merits?of?the?Times’s?request?for?disclosure?of?the?Governor’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?from?his?inaugural?to?the?date?of?the?request,?a?period?of?approximately?five?years.?As?noted?earlier,?the?Governor?claimed?that?the?records?were?exempt?from?disclosure?on?three?separate?grounds:?the?correspondence?exemption?set?forth?in?section?6254,?subdivision?(l);?the?deliberative?process?privilege,?as?subsumed?under?the?”public?interest”?exception?of?section?6255;?and?the?threat?to?the?Governor’s?personal?security,?also?pursuant?to?section?6255. The?Correspondence?Exemption [3]?Section?6254,?subdivision?(l)?exempts?from?operation?of?the?Act?”correspondence?of?and?to?the?Governor?or?employees?of?the?Governor’s?[53?Cal.3d?1337]?office.”?Black’s?Law?Dictionary?defines?”correspondence”?as?constituting,?inter?alia,?the?”[i]nterchange?of?written?communications.”?(Black’s?Law?Dict.?(5th?ed.?1979)?p.?311.)?Seizing?on?this?broad?definition,?the?Governor?argues?that?his?calendars?and?schedules?constitute?”written?communications”?between?his?scheduling?secretary,?his?senior?staff?and?himself,?and?thus?fall?within?the?scope?of?the?exemption. The?Court?of?Appeal?rejected?the?contention,?however,?ruling?that?Webster’s?definition?of?correspondence?as?”communication?by?letters”?(Webster’s?New?Collegiate?Dict.?(9th?ed.?1984)?p.?293)?was?more?in?conformity?with?the?”ordinary?import?of?the?language”?of?the?statute?and?the?underlying?legislative?intent.?(People?ex?rel.?Younger?v.?Superior?Court?(1976)?16?Cal.3d?30,?43?[127?Cal.Rptr.?122,?544?P.2d?1322].) The?Court?of?Appeal?was?correct.?Prior?to?1975,?the?Act?exempted?from?disclosure?all?records?”[i]n?the?custody?of?or?maintained?by?the?Governor?or?employees?of?the?Governor’s?office?employed?directly?in?his?office?….”?(Stats.?1970,?ch.?1295,???1.5,?p.?2397.)?In?1975,?this?exemption?was?amended?to?limit?the?exemption?to?correspondence?of?or?to?the?Governor?and?his?staff.?(Stats.?1975,?ch.?1246,???3,?p.?3209.)?”Where?changes?have?been?introduced?to?a?statute?by?amendment?it?must?be?assumed?the?changes?have?a?purpose?….”?(Louisiana-Pacific?Corp.?v.?Humboldt?Bay?Mun.?Water?Dist.?(1982)?137?Cal.App.3d?152,?159?[186?Cal.Rptr.?833].) The?Governor’s?suggested?definition?of?correspondence?as?”written?communications”?is?so?broad?as?to?encompass?nearly?every?document?generated?by?the?Governor’s?office,?effectively?reinstating?the?original?exemption?and?rendering?the?1975?amendment?a?nullity.?Refining?the?definition,?as?the?Governor?suggests,?to?written?communications?”directed?to?an?identifiable?person?or?person?for?the?purpose?of?establishing?contact?with?the?recipient,”?accomplishes?little.?Even?under?this?definition,?the?exception?would?swallow?the?rule. Therefore,?we?conclude?that?for?purposes?of?the?Act,?the?correspondence?exemption?must?be?confined?to?communications?by?letter.?The?Governor’s?appointment?calendars?and?schedules?plainly?do?not?meet?this?definition,?and?therefore?are?not?exempt?from?disclosure?under?section?6254,?subdivision?(l). The?Public?Interest?Exemption [4a]?The?Governor?also?asserts?that?his?personal?calendars?and?schedules?are?exempt?from?disclosure?under?section?6255,?the?so-called?”public?[53?Cal.3d?1338]?interest”?exemption.?An?understanding?of?the?claim?requires?a?brief?discussion?of?the?purposes?and?structure?of?the?Act?and?the?exceptions?thereto. The?Act?replaced?a?hodgepodge?of?statutes?and?court?decisions?relating?to?disclosure?of?public?records.?(American?Civil?Liberties?Union?Foundation?v.?Deukmejian?(1982)?32?Cal.3d?440,?447?[186?Cal.Rptr.?235,?651?P.2d?822];?Shaffer?et?al.,?A?Look?at?the?California?Records?Act?and?Its?Exemptions?(1974)?4?Golden?Gate?L.Rev.?203,?210-213.)?Its?preamble?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.”?(??6250;?American?Civil?Liberties?Union?Foundation?v.?Deukmejian,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?at?p.?447.)?In?this?and?other?respects?the?Act?was?modeled?on?its?federal?predecessor,?the?Freedom?of?Information?Act?(5?U.S.C.???552?et?seq.;?hereafter?FOIA),?which?was?”broadly?conceived”?(EPA?v.?Mink?(1973)?410?U.S.?73,?80?[35?L.Ed.2d?119,?128,?93?S.Ct.?827])?to?require?”full?agency?disclosure?unless?information?is?[statutorily]?exempted?….”?(Federal?Open?Market?Committee?v.?Merrill?(1979)?443?U.S.?340,?351?[61?L.Ed.2d?587,?598,?99?S.Ct.?2800].)?The?legislative?history?and?judicial?construction?of?the?FOIA?thus?”serve?to?illuminate?the?interpretation?of?its?California?counterpart.”?(American?Civil?Liberties?Union?Foundation?v.?Deukmejian,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?at?p.?447;?CBS,?Inc.?v.?Block,?supra,?42?Cal.3d?at?p.?651.) The?Act?sets?forth?numerous?categories?of?records?exempt?from?compelled?disclosure.?(??6254.)?[5]?In?addition,?section?6255?establishes?a?”catchall”?exemption?that?permits?the?government?agency?to?withhold?a?record?if?it?can?demonstrate?that?”on?the?facts?of?a?particular?case?the?public?interest?served?by?not?making?the?record?public?clearly?outweighs?the?public?interest?served?by?disclosure?of?the?record.” The?Act?does?not?specifically?identify?the?public?interests?that?might?legitimately?be?”served?by?not?making?the?record?public”?under?section?6255.?The?nature?of?those?interests,?however,?may?be?fairly?inferred,?at?least?in?part,?from?the?specific?exemptions?contained?in?section?6254.?As?one?commentator?has?observed:?”[S]ection?6255?was?designed?to?act?as?a?catchall?for?those?individual?records?similar?in?nature?to?the?categories?of?records?exempted?by?section?6254,?but?which?the?Legislature?determined,?in?balancing?the?competing?interests,?would?not?justify?disclosure?as?a?general?rule?….?[T]he?provisions?of?section?6254?will?provide?appropriate?indicia?as?to?the?nature?of?the?public?interest?in?nondisclosure?and?will?thus?aid?the?courts?in?determining?the?disclosability?of?a?document?under?section?6255.”?(Note,?The?California?Public?Records?Act:?The?Public’s?Right?of?Access?to?Governmental?Information?(1976)?7?Pacific?L.J.?105,?119-120,?italics?added;?see?also?American?Civil?Liberties?Union?Foundation?v.?Deukmejian,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?at?p.?462?(conc.?and?dis.?opn.?of?Bird,?C.?J.)?[“The?specific?[53?Cal.3d?1339]?exemptions?of?section?6254?are?of?considerable?aid?in?ascertaining?the?Legislature’s?conception?of?’the?public?interest?served?by?not?making?[a]?record?public?….’?”].) […]
