San Jose Dollar 500K Payout: San Jose is poised to allocate $500,000 to San José Spotlight and the First Amendment Coalition following their triumph in a public records lawsuit against the city. The San Jose City Council is set to deliberate on this payout, intended to cover attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the 18-month legal battle.
The February 2022 complaint accused the city and former Mayor Sam Liccardo of breaking the California Public Records Act, which requires public bodies to disclose public business. Santa Clara County Court Judge Thomas Kuhnle ordered the city to reveal hundreds of pages of wrongfully suppressed information in July, a major victory.
The proposed $500,000 payout reflects negotiations between the city attorney and the legal representatives of San José Spotlight and the First Amendment Coalition. The California Public Records Act allows the “prevailing party” to recover reasonable attorney’s fees from the involved public agency.
Karl Olson, a First Amendment lawyer representing San José Spotlight, expressed satisfaction with the victory, emphasizing its role in upholding the public’s right to information. He hopes such legal battles won’t be necessary in the future.
The lawsuit, spanning approximately two years, challenged the withholding of public records by the city. The complexity of the case involved numerous records, exhibits, and critical issues, according to David Loy, the Legal Director of the First Amendment Coalition.
Also Read: Speed Demons and Safety Dreams: San Francisco’s Battle for Safer Streets
While City Attorney Nora Frimann declined to comment on the pending settlement, the resolution underscores the significance of transparency in government operations. In August, Judge Kuhnle ruled that Liccardo and the city failed to adequately prove how the former mayor searched his private accounts for requested records, highlighting the importance of meticulous adherence to transparency laws.
Liccardo expressed disagreement with the decision to pay attorneys’ fees, suggesting that taxpayers would be better served by appealing the refusal to consider evidence. However, legal experts argue that the settlement amount is reasonable and crucial for upholding the principles of open government.
As the city council considers the proposed settlement, the case serves as a reminder of the ongoing efforts to ensure transparency and accountability in public administration.