r 0; i'bU bU3 I.,) 1 ,;.

j r' r:' ',1

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIF'ORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN UIt:GO
NORTH COUNTY
ORDE:R
0,1-\ T r.' 1 / 10 11
TIME: 09:51 AM CleF' I: r\l-3 '1
"IU[)IC1P"L OFFICER PRESIDING: TimotllY M_ CGisserlv
CJ Fr<.I<: Tnsh Dietrich .
r<EPORTER/ERM' Not
B/\ILlr=F/COUI{ r ATTENDANT:
NO: 37-2010-00058511 .. CU-PT'-NC CASE INIT.OATE: 08fHj/?01n
Cf.\.:.::.a: TITLE. Cumnlins vs. City of Encinitas
C;-\Sr CA'J Civil - Unlimilr::d CASE TYPE: Petitions - 01,1181'
. -,._---_ ..... ,,---
The Court, h;nflng taken the above-entitled maHer under submission on 12l21"11 dl11j fully
considered the arguments of air parties, both wntten alid as wt,;11 as the ovidclice \ i II
fullows:
Thp. COlJrI t:;:';!H-;fwi the followil'O rlJlirlg on the rnotioll fDr fees of PRl'itim ("P','t.lIl"d n"('i
City of (the "City"):
motion lur fees is granted.
rcq uest for jLldicial notice IS grS!ited.
II H)t' :;(lUght a writ Of m,::)Ildate to compel the City to produce pul")! ic rr:cord5 rH,Jrt';l!rll i1 ti 1 tI
JllJblic RI3cords AGt (HCPRArr)_ TI,e partiss did not disDUh:! Uldt U II"" d!JU
Qf,lnstltute public rRcQrds_ fhe records the condition mainlr"!llancC' e'l PlJbllc ;,lIld llit,:
City denied the reque.st to prodlJc.e the recQrds, claiming protection ulldur tho dcllt.H; r I'll iv'r:' prf)ct;:':; ..
privil e:qP-.
PI)l itiuI1nr retained on a contingency basis in this (Petitionl:r . fj,)
thf.: answer to the evasive fOr thot It'lI:O C;lt,' would I HA t,:'1)nHnTl
tll;;,4! Ib t-;rnploynor. t:lut.hored corrt1spundenc:e attached to tt"le petition_ 4::',) PC:Ht,lc")nt
r
IllltliJlr;d () meet and confer erfor1 and the City stated ii, stood bV it.S initial (Jr!.) P()(II.II H'HI' fill-::i!
rl1otlon tel sl.riku portions of the ;::tnswer. The City then filed Pi fin:;t: amenc1pd 1)(1 f I:hl
2, .2011, taklllq the hC;3ring on the to strike of'f calendar. the (:luitr1s Ill;'}! ;'1 11"1
0f the motion papers by City omployees Lo counsel is wllat ci;lused the in I tht
fi:.1ilUI III Citv's dcliv(:'rv did not, obviClte counsel's to file UK' ntutlon CCII \r\IIUl
F)Clltlor 1(!r'5 g02t1 of obiRinil1y n lore definite response.
Pctltioller began tile dIscovery and after the City's n;spon5cs h;'
(5(1t nile). Petitionw requested a 111eet and confer SI,d did not hear hflCk from the.! Cily, fVVln:"tnn 1)(;(":" '1
7.) r:;l('ltlti()nc)r a motion to cornpel and learned of the court's ;)1"1(j cnri1nl 1111,)I..-i'1
1
Ul\ IL: 1 Z/05/l0 '11
[) t:: r' N -J 1
t'0/c0'd
t'El0 E09 096
._--_._---..-" .... _---
MINUTl: ORDER
JG Gti8SlC:JtO
1 '
CalcrHldl
nrC-872011 lG:30 From:
CASE TITLE Cummins V5 City of Encinitas CASE NO. 37-2U10-000!:i3!Jl i-CU-P'( NC
tl'19n reque;ted that the p-;i'iGipate the and the City dirt nut .
{VVlri5tOIl Doc .. R) At (l status conference, tile City agreed to provide furthpr \dk,inf1 U-'I:'
motion 10 Gornpel off calE;nd3f. (\Ninston Dec .. 9.) The City claim::; it deemr.:d Petllio/H":r':. nIi .. ;.1(1.:)
conk:r "nonSP-flsiC;;iII" as ils dt:.:livery system hiJd not yet lhn C.OLIII',' '.d >,lIilll
molion to compel (OpP0 .. p. 3,) Tile City's de:dsiorl to nml.=.lill nl
or iClcreasir Ig errorts to track down the rclCVtlnt riO! cor"L'c:rl 1f,.'I ... ,
Icgilinldte (j Iscovcry efforts to "Ulillecessarily conduct" as dairnerl by City lid,)
court granted Petitioner's writ of (5/24/11 Order) The City i;lpp(:;'all!d GOtJl l's .. I('
;;nd th8 rippelll1ttl COllrt denied tho appeal. (8/2/11 Decision ,)
IS U entitled tQ fees, The c.ourt award costs and raasolubh.! h:nG t() till,;'
if plaintiff prevails in litigation to inspect public records to lhH CPI',,{A. HtHnJn:ll v,
of Mont0rey (2008) 167 Cal. APD. It th 1379, 1393. Considering how this unfulck:u PICiC(HilJr'r1I!v"
1 ()f the hoUr'S billed by Petitioner's counsel through August 2011 I;:tr1d 1 s blllu(j nn thH 111: .. / .. 1I'!l
motion to collect ale rei3$onable. riA defendant cannot iiligatn ilnd trion lJt2 1,[ I
CCHllp!;Jin the time necess;:.Jl'iiy spont by the plaintiff in H _,'I' II
VV;EJI'p.1 HJUSfJllhj!I1'S Union v. Los Angeles Export Terminal. Inc, (1989) 69 Cal. ,'\pp 4tli ;::g l, i In
liqht of ttl!;; experient;e level amJ expertise of Petitioner's coullsel, hQIJr1v r;;tt'! of $ ... I :'_il.u
f
I;';
rO:H;on;1bI8. is 'for use of a foe multiplior of 1.2S l)ds.ed l ((IT \I II \ :J' II 'if:y
nulure of this case:
A contuig0,",t fap- must be higher than a fee for the same legal pflid (is p,':lrtorn It'd. /'I!e
cO
fl1io
9orlt reI':' lawyer not only for the legal services I hl;l ff,ir thr;- lO;tn 01-
thm:'.c The implicit rate on such a loan is highr:r Ihn of (tilt'
1I10 r,;':'1t;C. wilich the debt of tile clielit to the lawyer) is. (1iuch higher tlli:lll tl'hll of COIII.:Uri ['1(1l1dl

lri. ;.jt 11 1 tIe use 01' a is tUli/ler suppoded by case's focus on COl n:;t,llil
i
ipll;il
rif)hts "In casp-s involving of but ur' no wh tr-;I('!
may make such Cr)ses economicrtlly fBllSiblo to CO!llpctOlll privHtH Id
r1'iollnn for fees IS granted in th8 amount of $51 ,862,
IllS SO ORDERED:
DA IE: 12/1.15(2011
DLPT: N-31
p[10 [09 09L
... --.. ,
Judge Timothy M. Ci:lssedy
MINUTE ORDER
J
l'iY.P.! >'
( 1.,,11 t,Ji"
v0"d If:HOl
L:'I , .. \, r J .... ,I ,,' I. ... .... 1 ... 1 .J .....
SUPt:RIQR COURT OF CALlfOFUJIA/ COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
NQr th Cnllr1l V
S r,,1r.:lrt,)se
VI:-;lr;t, C../J.\ 92081
'---- ,._-_ .. "",
1-; 1 flE: vs. _1;;;_n_C_ln_it ..... d.S ...._____ -. -__ . ___ .,.,_"
f CA:;!'
1 CLERK"S CE:RTIHCATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL 37-10'IO-00058511rCU-1-' I
i,
I certify tht=lIJ am I"'ot IJ.:,.IT1y to 1111s cause. I cer1.iFy a true copy Of t11!;:! milllJII.,l ordnr If..,';I!:.
fl)lIowln9 court proacticC!s lil a sealed envelope witl1 postage .-:If:, 1;1.'1 ()'.-,-
Thl) Illdlllrl9 and Ihls celiificallrm OCCurred ij1[ Vistr3, on lZLQ:w..9.J..J.,
I'\I:NNIS A
,122 CARl t,l=< 11 APT add
DFt.. REV, CA 901.92
.A ..
Clerk rif the Courl. by: _._T-O .. -,"-'c,, ____ -_
GLENN SAWNE
CITY OF OFFjl:;E THE en Y
inlORNE
505 S VULCAN AVI=NUE
ENCINitAS, GA 92024
" ,--',. --, ---_ ... ---,,-_."'"
CLERK'S CERTIFICAlE OF SERVICE BY MAIL,
1710 09
JG Gtl8Sl(:JtlJ