Voice of OC Public Records Case Postponed to Apr. 13

This week, Judge Walter P. Schwarm indicated in a verbal tentative ruling that he was leaning towards granting portions of Voice of OC requests for public records denied by the County, including an Op-ed written by Supervisor Todd Spitzer about the incident at a Wahoos restaurant where he handcuffed an evangelist while armed.

However, before making a decision, Schwarm requested additional briefing on whether he could review the records before making a decision and on the recent California Supreme Court case involving public access to private email accounts used by public officials while doing public business.

Schwarm scheduled another hearing on April 13, where he will consider the additional arguments made by the parties.

  • OCservant_Leader

    Let’s take a close look at what the County is claiming as “privilege” shall we?

    They violate the law in each and every CPRA. They give the black highlighter to an insider with a GED who redacts — everything.

    V of OC – challenge each and EVERY redaction. Someone at OC (the invisible immune hands of the BOS) should have to answer why they violated the law, and are intentionally obstructing the public process.

    Same SOP as the Sheriff hiding records from Judge Goethals — and for the last few years – and getting away with it.

    This ridiculous, costly game the OC plays is getting old.

    Come on Judge Schwarm!

  • verifiedsane

    This is our justice system!…delay, delay, delay…and then kick the can down the road….then after jumping you through all the hoops, they take a black marker to what ever was being requested in the first place….Spitzer will be drinking “boost” through a straw in some high priced old folks retirement home wearing silk diapers by the time the VOC gets any pertinent records/information. That’s if anything of public value hasn’t been destroyed, buried in a landfill, or ran through a industrial shredder already…

  • LFOldTimer

    “granting portions”? Huh?

    Which portions wouldn’t be granted?

    How could written communications between public officials regarding county matters of public interest be legally concealed from public scrutiny?

    Head scratcher. :^(