California Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case on Whether the Public May Obtain Computer Mapping Data under the California Public Records Act

Los Angeles, California – September 14, 2011
The Supreme Court of California today agreed to review the Court of Appeal’s decision in Sierra Club v. Superior Court (Orange County). The main issue in the case is whether a state or local government agency must provide computer mapping data for only the cost of copying under the California Public Records Act.

Environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club use computer mapping data – also known as “GIS data” – to prepare maps for conservation campaigns. One common type of GIS data is parcel data, which describes the shape and location of the legal land parcels, as maintained by the county assessor. The Club has repeatedly obtained GIS parcel data on CD from Los Angeles County for a nominal fee: $6 plus $2 shipping costs. Orange County charges $375,000 for the same database, though Orange County has half the number of land parcels that Los Angeles County does. Orange County runs a business selling this data to private companies and other public agencies. For example, it charges the Orange County Fire Authority tens of thousands of dollars per year for the parcel database, which the Authority uses to route its emergency vehicles.

The Sierra Club sued Orange County in 2009, after the county refused to provide a copy of its GIS parcel database under the California Public Records Act. The Orange County Superior Court ruled that the database was part of a computer mapping system, and therefore fell within the definition of “computer software” in the PRA. This exempted it from disclosure. The Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three, located in Orange County, agreed with the trial court, denying the Sierra Club’s appeal.

These decisions conflict with a decision rendered in 2009 by the Court of Appeal in Santa Clara. In that case the California First Amendment Coalition sued the County of Santa Clara for its GIS parcel data under the Public Records Act. CFAC won both at the trial-court and the appeals level. According to the Santa Clara decision, public agencies must provide GIS parcel data under the PRA.

“Of course we can’t know for sure what the justices were thinking when they agreed to review our case, but a major factor must have been the conflict between our case and the Santa Clara case,” says Dean Wallraff, one of the Sierra Club’s attorneys in the case. “We think the Santa Clara court got it right, both on the correct interpretation of the statute, and on public-policy grounds. There’s no reason that GIS data should be exempted while agencies are required to provide other types of computer data under the Public Records Act.

“We’re very gratified that the Supreme Court took the case. We’re fighting this fight not just for ourselves – because we need the data at a price we can afford – but for all the other environmental organizations, newspapers, businesses, and citizen activists that have a right information about how our government is conducting its business,” according to Lore Pekrul, Vice Chair of the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter GIS Committee. “We paid for this data through our taxes, and we should have a right to use it.”

Another issue in the case is how strongly to apply the relatively new civil right of access to government information added to the California Constitution by Prop. 59 in 2004. Among the rights listed in section 3 of Article I of the Constitution is the people’s “right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.”  The Constitution requires limitations on the people’s right to information in state laws to be interpreted narrowly. “The Orange County Court of Appeal did not give much weight to the constitutional right of access to information in this case. This is one of the first major tests of Prop. 59 – whether it will play a significant role in providing people with access to information, or whether the courts will largely ignore it,” according to Wallraff.