Stanford Law School - Robert Crown Law Library

Filed 6/22/06

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON, )

Petitioner,
S133464
v.
Ct.App. 2/5 B178884
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY,
Los Angeles County
Respondent.
Super. Ct. No. BC090033
CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT )
OF AIRPORTS et al.
Real Parties in Interest.
____________________________________ )

In this case, we consider California’s Public Records Act (Gov. Code, §
6250, et seq. (the Act)), generally calling for disclosure of a public agency’s
records, and the statutory exception (id., § 6255) applicable where the public
interest in nondisclosure “clearly outweighs” the public interest in disclosure.
More specifically, we face questions concerning the availability and timing of
public disclosure of competitive proposals submitted to a public agency as part of
a process of qualifying and negotiating for a public contract, lease, or other
project. As will appear, consistent with analogous federal law and the majority of
statutes and decisions in other states, we conclude that public disclosure of such
1

---

proposals properly may await conclusion of the agency’s negotiation process,
occurring before the agency’s recommendation is finally approved by the
awarding authority. We will reverse the contrary judgment of the Court of
Appeal.
FACTS
The following uncontradicted facts are taken largely from the Court of
Appeal’s decision. On November 3, 2003, the City of Los Angeles Department of
Airports, also known as Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), issued a “Request
for Proposals” (RFP) for the lease of a 7.2854-acre parcel of land at Van Nuys
Airport. Situated on the parcel is a complex consisting of three hangars, two
office buildings, and a fuel farm. “Proposers” were told to submit proposals by
December 15, 2003, although the date was later extended to February 15, 2004.
The RFP provided that all proposals “will become the property of LAWA and a
matter of public record.”
Under the RFP, LAWA would select the successful proposal based on a
number of criteria or qualifications, including the proposed rent and concession
fees, the proposed use of the property, financial capability and responsibility,
management qualifications and experience, general reputation to conduct
aeronautical services, scope of aviation services to be provided and “other such
factors as LAWA deems appropriate.” The RFP also provided that LAWA could
reject any or all proposals, could advertise for new proposals, or could “proceed
otherwise.” Additionally, LAWA could elect to negotiate with the “Proposer(s)
found . . . to have submitted the best Proposals . . . .” Following negotiations,
LAWA would submit a proposed lease to the reviewing authority, the Board of
Airport Commissioners (the Board) and, following the Board’s approval of a
proposed lease exceeding five years, to the Los Angeles City Council. Prior to the
2

---

Board’s approval, the public would have five days to review these proposals and
the proposed lease. LAWA received eight proposals in response to its RFP.
On April 19, 2004, after the deadline for submitting proposals had passed,
but before LAWA had negotiated with or selected the successful proposer,
petitioner, a law firm engaged in aviation related business, submitted to the
Airport Division of the Los Angeles City Attorney (City Attorney) a request under
the Act for copies of all proposals submitted in response to the RFP. On May 7,
2004, LAWA’s Airport Property Manager, Jess Romo, informed petitioner that
LAWA would provide it with copies of the proposals after LAWA had concluded
negotiations with the (yet to be named) successful proposer.
Mr. Romo’s letter noted the “long-established practice of most
governmental agencies to make RFP proposals available for public review at the
time the contract is presented to the awarding authority [i.e., the Board] for award.
More precisely, proposals are first available for review when the awarding
authority's agenda containing the contract to be awarded is published. [¶] This
practice allows for the public to obtain the information prior to the awarding
authority's consideration and award of the contract. Importantly, it also allows the
governmental entity, on behalf of its residents and taxpayers, to complete the
negotiations without the proposers knowing each other's price and terms. To make
proposals available for public review prior to this time would seriously impact the
government's ability to negotiate a fair and cost effective proposed contract.”
On May 12, 2004, petitioner filed a mandate petition in superior court.
(See Gov. Code, §6258.) A hearing was set for September 13, 2004. In the
meantime, on June 8, 2004, after the deadline for submitting proposals had passed,
the City Attorney provided petitioner with the names of the companies that had
submitted proposals, but did not provide copies of the proposals themselves. The
City Attorney opined that disclosing the information at that time “would
3

---

irretrievably corrupt the process and harm not only the respondents, but also city
taxpayers who may not receive the best value in return for the expenditure of their
tax dollar,” because the successful proposer could gain a negotiating advantage if
it knew the details of the unsuccessful proposals.
The City Attorney referred petitioner to section 10.15(f)(6) of the Los
Angeles Administrative Code, which relates to competitive bidding. That section
provides: “Proposals shall be opened and their contents secured to prevent
disclosure during the process of negotiating with competing proposers. The
proposals shall be opened publicly, but only the names of the proposers shall be
revealed. Adequate precautions shall be taken to treat each proposer fairly and to
insure that information gleaned from competing proposals is not disclosed to other
proposers. Prices and other information concerning the proposals shall not be
disclosed until a recommendation for award is made to the awarding authority.”
On June 30, 2004, LAWA mailed letters to all the bidders announcing that
its evaluation panel was recommending Castle & Cooke Aviation Services as the
best-qualified firm for the project. LAWA told the unsuccessful proposers that if
they wanted to “provide additional information” they could do so by “completing
a public comment card.” Under the provisions of the RFP, if any person wanted to
submit a protest concerning the award it was required to do so “by 5:00 p.m. of the
fifth business day after the issuance of a notice of intent to award the Lease.” Any
such protest had to contain “a full and complete statement specifying in detail the
grounds of the protest and the facts in support thereof.”
Although LAWA’s request to negotiate with Castle & Cooke Aviation
Services was placed on the agenda for the July 19, 2004, meeting of the Board, it
declined to approve the award at that time. Rather, the Board deferred its decision
and returned the matter to LAWA to “evaluate all scenarios of all proposals for the
4

---

highest and best return to LAWA prior to presenting an agenda item to the Board.”
LAWA’s staff scheduled meetings with three proposers in mid-September 2004.
On September 13, 2004, the trial court issued its tentative decision to deny
petitioner’s mandate petition. The court cited Government Code section 6255, and
stated its tentative view that disclosing contents of the proposals prior to the
ultimate selection of the successful proposer would adversely impact the city's
negotiating position. The mandamus petition was heard September 27, 2004. On
October 8, 2004, the court issued its decision denying the petition pursuant to
Government Code section 6255 “because the public interest in nondisclosure
clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”
The Court of Appeal, by a two-to-one vote, disagreed with the trial court,
finding that “the City has failed to demonstrate there is a ‘clear overbalance’ in
favor of delaying disclosure.” The majority felt that the city’s reasons for
nondisclosure were “vague and speculative,” and that the public had a “significant
interest” in knowing, prior to completion of the negotiating process, whether
LAWA had acted properly and in accordance with its own guidelines.
The Court of Appeal majority also reasoned that (1) the city’s concern
about the possibility of proposers changing their proposals was unfounded because
proposers were not permitted to change their proposals after the submission
deadline had passed, (2) the city enjoyed an “enormous negotiating advantage” in
being able to reject any proposals deemed unsuitable, and (3) the city’s negotiating
position could not be hurt by permitting proposers to know that other competitive
proposals were “waiting in the wings.” The majority concluded that the public
had a legitimate interest in knowing during the negotiating process, whether the
city had acted in accordance with its guidelines, or instead had improperly favored
certain proposers.
5

---

In his dissent, Justice Mosk stated that substantial evidence supported the
trial court’s findings, that little if any public benefit would derive from premature
disclosure of the competing proposals, and that such disclosure could impair the
city’s selection and negotiating process. As will appear, we think the dissent’s
views have merit and will reverse.
DISCUSSION
The Act, while “mindful of the right of individuals to privacy,” provides
that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a
fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (Gov. Code, §
6250; see also Cal. Const. art. I, §3, subd. (b) [creating constitutional right of
access to public agency records and calling for strict construction of statutes
limiting such access]; Gov. Code, § 54950.) Accordingly, as a general rule, public
records are open to inspection at all times during office hours, “and every person
has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided.” (Gov.
Code, § 6253, subd. (a).) In addition to specific exemptions of particular records
set forth in Government Code section 6254, the Act contains a broad catchall
exemption for agencies able to “justify withholding any record by demonstrating
that . . . on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not
disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of
the record. (Id., § 6255, subd. (a).) As petitioner observes, this provision
contemplates a case-by-case balancing process, with the burden of proof on the
proponent of nondisclosure to demonstrate a clear overbalance on the side of
confidentiality. (E.g., California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior
Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 810, 831.)
As noted, the trial court expressly found that in this case the public interest
in nondisclosure clearly outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The court’s
tentative decision, which the court later ordered filed as setting forth the court’s
6

---

“rationale,” contained the following additional findings: “[LAWA’s] ability to get
the most value for the hangar facility would be impacted if the proposer that is
ultimately approved by [the Board] enters into lease negotiations with full
knowledge of what each proposer is willing to pay. [LAWA’s] ability to negotiate
with the proposer would be hampered because the proposer’s doubt as to what the
competition is offering would be eliminated. To the extent the public interest in
disclosure is to hold government agencies accountable by verifying their actions,
that interest would still be served by disclosing the proposals after [the Board]
actually takes action and negotiates a lease with one of the proposers. [¶]
Currently all proposals are subject to further review, recalculation and [LAWA]
interviews of the proposers. Disclosure of specific details of the proposals would
impact [LAWA’s] flexibility in negotiation and could be used against the City to
gain competitive advantage.”
The dissent below explained that although a reviewing court should weigh
the competing public interest factors de novo, it should accept as true the trial
court’s findings of the “facts of the particular case” (Gov. Code, § 6255, subd.
(a)), assuming those findings are supported by substantial evidence. (CBS, Inc. v.
Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 650-651; Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991)
53 Cal.3d 1325, 1336; CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 892, 906; California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior
Court, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 824; see Gov. Code, § 6259.) As will appear,
the trial court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and confirm our
independent reweighing of the various public interest factors in the city’s favor.
Petitioner also argues that, even if the records at issue were exempt from
advance disclosure, the city was obliged to disclose them because it failed to
comply with the timing requirements of the Act (e.g., Gov. Code, § 6253, subds.
(c) [requiring agency decision within 10 days as to whether it will comply with
7

---

disclosure request], (d) [proscribing delay in disclosure].) But we believe that
requiring disclosure of otherwise exempt records as a penalty for delay in
complying with the Act’s timing requirements is unduly harsh. Certainly, the Act
does not expressly provide such a remedy. (Cf. Rogers v. Superior Court (1993)
19 Cal.App.4th 469, 483.) Accordingly, we will address the merits of the
nondisclosure issue.
1. Public interest in disclosure – The Court of Appeal majority found a
“significant” public interest in advance disclosure of the various proposals after
the deadline for submitting them had passed, but before LAWA’s negotiations
with the preferred proposer had ceased. In the majority’s view, the public was
entitled to “assur[e] itself that LAWA is following its own guidelines [in] selecting
the successful proposer, and is not selecting these individuals or entities based on
political favoritism or some other criteria that do not serve the public.”
To support the Court of Appeal majority’s position, petitioner points to a
2003 city audit report, made public before the LAWA proposals in this case were
due, raising concerns about LAWA’s general contracting practices, its difficulties
in evaluating and selecting contract proposals because the definition and weight
given to the various evaluation factors were insufficiently specific, and the
“potential of abuse and conflict of interest” inherent in the RFP process.
Petitioner also stresses the “intense public interest” in the airport lease proposals,
given the potential benefits to, and burdens on, the “aviation community” as well
as the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhood.
We agree that the competitive bidding process is intended to assure a
healthy degree of competition, to guard against discrimination, favoritism, or
extravagance, and to assure the best social, environmental, and economic result for
the public. (See, e.g., Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (2000) 23 Cal.4th 305, 314; Domar Electric, Inc. v. City
8

---

of Los Angeles (1994) 9 Cal.4th 161, 173; Pub. Contract Code, § 100, subds. (b)-
(d).) Accordingly, the public may have a legitimate and substantial interest in
scrutinizing the process leading to the selection of the winning proposal. (E.g.,
California State University, Fresno Assn., Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 90
Cal.App.4th at pp. 833-834.) But, as the trial court specifically found here,
petitioner has offered no compelling reason why public scrutiny of this process
cannot as effectively take place after LAWA’s negotiations are completed, but
before the Board and the city finally approve the lease. As the city observes,
petitioner’s concern about the inadequacy of the five-day period for public
comment is based on mere speculation and further assumes the Board would
arbitrarily reject a reasonable request for additional time to analyze the winning
proposal and prepare critical input. Moreover, further opportunity for such
analysis and input presumably would be available if and when the matter is
submitted to the city council for final approval.
As Justice Mosk’s dissenting opinion in this case noted, “[p]ublic scrutiny
of the lease process and accountability of the decision makers will be served better
after the negotiating process, LAWA’s decision, and, perhaps, after the actual
decision to award the lease contract by the Board. Those interested in the integrity
of the city’s decisionmaking practices will be able to make such an evaluation
after decisions are actually made.” In that regard, we note that the city does not
contend that disclosure necessarily should follow the actual Board award, but “at a
time that allows an opportunity to review the process.” We need not decide in this
case the precise point in time appropriate for such disclosure, as long as a
reasonable time remains for public input before the Board’s final award is made.
Therefore, we agree with the trial court and the Court of Appeal dissent that
public disclosure of the various competing proposals after negotiations are
complete, and before the Board finally approves the award of the contract, would
9

---

give the public and all interested parties ample opportunity to scrutinize and
protest the proposed award. No reason appears why disclosure of the various
proposals prior to negotiations would provide any significantly greater benefit to
the public.
2. Public interest in nondisclosure – The trial court found substantial
public benefits from delaying disclosure of the various proposals until LAWA had
selected a proposal to be submitted to the Board and the city for approval.
Essentially, the court ruled that premature disclosure would reveal specific,
confidential details of the competing proposals to the other proposers, thereby
potentially impairing the city’s negotiation and selection processes.
As the Court of Appeal dissent observed, “[t]he request for proposals
suggests that LAWA might elect to negotiate with more than one bidder. If the
disclosure of bids takes place prior to negotiations with one or more bidders, the
City’s ability to obtain the most favorable arrangement may be jeopardized once a
negotiating bidder becomes aware of the content of competitive bids because that
bidder would no longer be in doubt as to its relative bargaining position. For
example, a bidder that is negotiating will be in a position to know that it does not
have to accede to City requests because of the content of other bids. The request
for proposals also contemplates that changes and amendments to bid proposals
will take place during negotiations. During negotiations, bidders may adjust their
bids—presumably to the detriment of the City—if they have knowledge of other
bids.”
Additionally, the city observes that advance disclosure of any significant
“gap” between the terms offered by the “finalist” proposer and its competitors
could induce that proposer to resist the city’s requests for even more favorable
terms, or lead to an amended proposal that offers less attractive terms. As an
amicus curiae herein observes, the willingness of a negotiating party to agree
10

---

depends in part on its assessment of the other party’s alternatives. Consider a
hypothetical example raised during oral argument in this case. If the selected
finalist for the lease project knew during negotiations that all of the proposals
specified a minimum seven-year period for constructing airport improvements,
LAWA could enjoy considerably less leverage in attempting to negotiate a shorter
construction period.
This possibility could be even more pronounced in “second-round”
situations involving negotiations with more than one potential “finalist.”
Nondisclosure during the negotiation process also tends to reduce the possibility
of collusion, price-fixing, or bid-rigging tactics. In other words, as the trial court
found, advance disclosure of the various proposals could adversely affect the
city’s ability to maximize its financial return on the lease.
The city observes that the RFP called for more than a simple high bid for a
leasehold, and instead contemplated a complete lease proposal that included a
detailed development plan. As the city states in its opening brief, “Proposers are
not likely to present their best work in their proposals if they know that their
competitors can filch their ideas during negotiations.” A proposer might well
hesitate to disclose creative, innovative insights or solutions after weighing the
threat of misappropriation by competitors. The result could be submission of
inferior proposals, to the ultimate detriment of the public interest.
The Court of Appeal majority questioned the city’s concern that
competitors might unfairly use the disclosed information to restructure their
proposals in such a manner as to appear more attractive. The majority stated that
“the proposals cannot be changed once the deadline for submitting them has
passed. Thus, the proposers could not amend their proposals to tailor them to
those of competitors.” But as the dissent observed, “[t]he notion that proposals
cannot be changed once the deadline for submitting them has passed does not, in
11

---

practical effect, appear to be accurate. There are negotiations with bidders over
the terms of the bids. If changes could not be made, there would be nothing to
negotiate. Moreover, the City can reopen the bidding process. The disclosure of
bids during the predecision period may affect the information submitted by
bidders and the decision maker’s deliberations and processes.”
We agree with the Court of Appeal dissent. Although the RFP indicates
that amendments to proposals “will not be accepted” after the RFP deadline has
passed, certainly LAWA could waive or ignore that provision during negotiations.
The RFP contemplates possible postsubmission “interview” sessions when invited
proposers may “clarify” their proposals. Moreover, the RFP gives LAWA the
right to reject all proposals, advertise for new ones, “or to proceed otherwise.”
Certainly the RFP would allow LAWA to consider amended proposals.
The Court of Appeal dissent discerned an additional policy reason for
withholding disclosure during the negotiation process: “The idea that members of
the public should have input into the selection of, and negotiation with, potential
lessees would add undesirable pressures, political and otherwise, to the process.”
Again, we agree. Although similar pressures could be exerted when the negotiated
proposal is presented to the Board and city for final approval, the public interest
seemingly would better be served by allowing LAWA to negotiate the terms of its
lease without facing those pressures.
3. Federal and state authorities – Federal statutes and cases
implementing or interpreting the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) are
instructive because the California Act is modeled on the FOIA. (See, e.g., Times
Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1338.) With regard to federal
procurement contracts, federal law prohibits disclosure of bid or proposal
information prior to the actual award of the contract. (See 41 U.S.C. §§ 253b(f)(4)
[debriefing unsuccessful bidders shall not include content, ranking, or evaluation
12

---

of other proposals], 253b(m) [prohibition on release of contractor proposals unless
incorporated in contract with proposer]; 423(a) [prohibition on release of
contractor bid or proposal information before award]; 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(3)
[exempting from FOIA disclosure any material exempted from disclosure by
statute]; 48 C.F.R. 424.203 (2005) [regulation exempting competitive proposals
from FOIA; Shermco Industries v. Secretary of Air Force (5th Cir. 1980) 613 F.2d
1314, 1317-1318 [disclosure of bid competitor’s cost proposals exempt under
FOIA until final award of contract]; Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. Dept. of the Army
of U.S. (D.D.C. 1984) 595 F.Supp. 352, 355-356, affd. (D.C. Cir. 1985) 762 F.2d
138 [agency could delay release to prospective bidder of documents on which
Army would rely in preparing its own sealed bid to perform work in-house].)
Petitioner observes, however, that these federal cases and statutes primarily
pertain to public agency procurement of goods and services on a “lowest
competitive bid” basis, and not to competitive proposals for lease contracts
seeking the highest competitive bid. Nonetheless, we think the governing
principle of preserving the confidentiality of competitive proposals for
government contracts seems equally applicable to both categories of contracts.
In addition, as the city’s opening brief sets forth at length, the great
majority of states, by statute or case law, exempt from public disclosure any
proposals submitted to public agencies during lease or contract negotiations.
Similarly, the American Bar Association’s 2000 Model Procurement Code for
State and Local Governments provides that “Proposals shall be opened so as to
avoid disclosure of contents to competing offerors during the process of
negotiation . . . .” (§ 3-203 (4).) It also provides that the “Register of Proposals
shall be . . . open for public inspection after contract award.” (Ibid.) Although
California has not adopted the American Bar Association’s Model Procurement
13

---

Code, and as petitioner observes, technically procurement is not involved here, the
provisions of the Model Code are worthy of consideration.

CONCLUSION
We conclude the trial court correctly ruled that public disclosure of the
competing proposals for the city’s lease project properly could await conclusion of
LAWA’s negotiation process. In light of our conclusion that the proposals
submitted to the city were, during the negotiation process, exempt under
Government Code section 6255 from the disclosure requirements of the Act, we
need not consider the city’s alternative argument that these proposals were
“official information” protected from disclosure under Evidence Code section
1040 and Government Code section 6254, subdivision (k).
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the cause remanded
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CHIN,
J.
WE CONCUR:
GEORGE, C.J.
KENNARD, J.
BAXTER, J.
WERDEGAR, J.
MORENO, J.
CORRIGAN, J.

14

---

See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.

Name of Opinion Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court
__________________________________________________________________________________

Unpublished Opinion

Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted XXX 127 Cal.App.4th 1298
Rehearing Granted

__________________________________________________________________________________

Opinion No.

S133464
Date Filed: June 22, 2006
__________________________________________________________________________________

Court:

Superior
County: Los Angeles
Judge: Dzintra I. Janavs

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Appellant:

Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson, Garry L. Montanari and Nathan B. Rand for Petitioner.

DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, James M. Chadwick, Jarod M. Bona; Thomas W. Newton, James W.
Ewert; Harold W. Fuson, Jr.; Karlene Goller; Andrew Huntington; Thomas R. Burke; and Jonathan
Donnellan for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, The Copley Press, Inc., Los Angeles
Times, San Jose Mercury News, Inc. The Bakersfield Californian and The Hearst Corporation as Amici
Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

Davis, Cowell & Bowe and Andrew J. Khan for Retail Food Industry Joint Labor Management Committee
as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Attorneys for Respondent:

No appearance for Respondent.

Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Eduardo A. Angeles, Assistant City Attorney, M. Lynn Mayo,
Deputy City Attorney; Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, Mara E. Rosales, Joseph M. Quinn and
Julia L. Bond for Real Parries in Interest.

Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney (San Francisco), Buck Delventhal and Paul Zarefsky, Deputy City
Attorneys; David L. Alexander, Port Attorney, and Christopher H. Alonzi, Deputy Port Attorney, for City
and County of San Francisco, League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties and
City of Oakland, acting by and through its Board of Port Commissioners as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real
Parties in Interest.

---

Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):

Garry L. Montanari
Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson
4333 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 110
Westlake Village, CA 91361
(818) 865-0444

James M. Chadwick
DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101-4240
9619) 699-2826

M. Lynn Mayo
Deputy City Attorney
1 World Way
P.O. Box 92216
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2216
(310) 646-3260

---

Opinion Information

Date:	Docket Number:
Thu, 06/22/2006	S133464

Disposition
Jun 22 2006	Opinion: Reversed

Dockets
Apr 29 2005	Petition for review filed   counsel for RPI City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Airports; Board of Airport.
May 6 2005	Record requested
May 9 2005	Received Court of Appeal record
May 19 2005	Answer to petition for review filed   counsel for petnr MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON
May 27 2005	Reply to answer to petition filed   counsel for petnrs. MICHAELIS, MONTANARI & JOHNSON
Jun 8 2005	Petition for review granted (civil case)   Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Brown, and Moreno, JJ.
Jun 8 2005	Letter sent to:   to counsel re: Certification of Interested Entities or Persons.
Jun 22 2005	Certification of interested entities or persons filed   counsel for RPI City of Los Angeles, Dept. of Airports; Board of Airport Comm; L.A. World Airports
Jun 23 2005	Certification of interested entities or persons filed   counsel for petitioner Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson
Jul 1 2005	Request for extension of time filed   to file RPI's opening brief. to: July 22, 2005
Jul 7 2005	Extension of time granted   to serve and file the Petitioner's Opening Brief to and including July 22, 2005.
Jul 14 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   RETAIL FOOD INDUSTRY JOINT LABOR MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE in support of petitioner.
Jul 15 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   Retail Food Industry Joint Labor-Management Committee.
Jul 15 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   Retail Food Industry Joint Labor-Management Committee in support of Petitioner. Any party may file a single consolidated answer to all amicus curiae briefs within 20 days after the last date that an application to file an amicus curiae brief may be filed under rule 29.1(f)(2).
Jul 22 2005	Association of attorneys filed for:   counsel for RPI City of Los Angeles, Dept. of airports; Brd ofAirport Commisioners; L.A. World Airports for law firm of MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON ad attorneys Mara Rosales Joseph . Qjuinn; and, Julia L. Bond
Jul 22 2005	Opening brief on the merits filed   counsel for real parties CITY OF LOS ANGELES, DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS
Aug 19 2005	Answer brief on the merits filed   counsel for petitioner Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson.
Sep 2 2005	Request for extension of time filed   to file RPI's Reply Brief/ Merits [City of L.A., Dept. of Airports] to 09-20-05.
Sep 9 2005	Extension of time granted   to serve and file the reply brief on the merits to and including September 20, 2005.
Sep 20 2005	Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)   RPI City of Los Angeles, Department of Airports.
Oct 20 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   from City & County of San Francisco et al., and City of Oakland (same brief) in support of real party in interest Los Angeles Department of Airports
Oct 20 2005	Received:   Amicus Curiae's( City and Co. San Francisco, et al.) Motion for Judicial Notice.
Oct 24 2005	Received application to file Amicus Curiae Brief   CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS, et al in support of Petitioner ( Michaelis).
Oct 24 2005	Received:   Request for Judicial Notice by Amicus Curiae California Newspaper Publishers et al.
Oct 26 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., in support of RPI.
Oct 26 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al., in support of RPI. Answer due within 20 days.
Oct 26 2005	Permission to file amicus curiae brief granted   THE CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOC., et al., in support of Petitioner.
Oct 26 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed   THE CALFORNIANEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOC.,in support of Petitioner. Answer due within 20 days.
Nov 9 2005	Request for extension of time filed   Real parties City of L.A., Dept. of Airport; Board of Airport Commissioners; Los Angeles World Airports along with petnrs. Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson jointly request extension of time to file their response briefs to a.c. briefs to 11-30-05.
Nov 10 2005	Extension of time granted   to Nov. 30, 2005 for Real Parties in Interest ( City of LA, Dept. of Airports, Bd of Airport Commissioners & Los Angeles World Airports, and Petitoner ( Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson) to file the answers to amicus curiae briefs.
Nov 30 2005	Response to amicus curiae brief filed   {Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson) petitioners responding to a.City and County of San Francisco et al.,
Nov 30 2005	Response to amicus curiae brief filed   City of Los Angeles, Department of Airports, et al., Real Parties in Interest responding to all amicus briefs in support of petitioners.
Jan 3 2006	Request for judicial notice filed (granted case)   Real Party in Interest, City of L.A. Dept. of Airports w/ declartion in support.
Jan 18 2006	Opposition filed   to Real Parties' Request for for Judicial Notice.
Jan 27 2006	Received:   Real Parties' Application For Leave To Reply To Newspaper Group's Opposition To Real Parties' Request For Judicial Notice & Reply Brief
Jan 31 2006	Filed:   Reply to Newspaper Group's opposition to real parties' request for judicial notice.
Apr 4 2006	Case ordered on calendar   Wednesday, May 3, 2006, at 1:30 p.m., in San Francisco
Apr 10 2006	Motion filed (non-AA)   Motion to continue oral argument; and declaration in support. Filed by Joseph M. Quinn, counsel for real parties in interest City of Los Angeles, Department of Airports et al.
Apr 12 2006	Order filed   Real parties in interest's "Motion to Continue Oral Argument', filed April 10, 2006, is denied.
Apr 14 2006	Motion filed (non-AA)   Application pursuant to Rule 29.2(f) and (g) for allocation of time during oral argument to amicus counsel. filed by Garry L. Montanari on behalf of petitioner Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson
Apr 17 2006	Order filed   The request of counsel for petitioner in the above-referenced cause to allow two counsel to argue on behalf of petitioner at oral argument is hereby granted. The request of petitioner to allocate to amicus curiae California Newspaper Publishers Association 10 minutes of petitioner's 30-minute allotted time for oral argument is granted.
Apr 17 2006	Argument rescheduled   moved to the morning session of the day previously scheduled: to be argued on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., in San Francisco.
May 3 2006	Cause argued and submitted
Jun 22 2006	Opinion filed: Judgment reversed   and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Opinion by: Chin, J. Joined by: George, C.J. Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Moreno, Corrigan,J.J.
Jul 26 2006	Remittitur issued (civil case)

Briefs
Jul 15 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Jul 22 2005	Opening brief on the merits filed
Aug 19 2005	Answer brief on the merits filed
Sep 20 2005	Reply brief filed (case fully briefed)
Oct 26 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Oct 26 2005	Amicus curiae brief filed
Nov 30 2005	Response to amicus curiae brief filed
Nov 30 2005	Response to amicus curiae brief filed

If you'd like to submit a brief document to be included for this opinion, please submit an e-mail to the SCOCAL website