Courthouse News Service v. Michael Planet

Filing 25

Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction Opposition re: MOTION for Preliminary Injunction #3 filed by Defendant Michael Planet. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Declaration, #3 Declaration, #4 Declaration)(Reilley, Erica)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Robert A. Naeve (State Bar No. 106095)
[e-mail]
Erica L. Reilley (State Bar No. 211615)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
MICHAEL PLANET, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS COURT EXECUTIVE
OFFICER/CLERK OF THE VENTURA
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

COURTHOUSE NEWS SERVICE,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Case No. CV11-08083 R (MANx)

Plaintiff,

Assigned for all purposes to
Hon. Manuel L. Real

v.

DECLARATION OF CHERYL
KANATZAR IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION
TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

MICHAEL PLANET, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COURT
EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CLERK OF
THE VENTURA COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT,

Date:
November 21, 2011
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 8

Defendant.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

I, CHERYL KANATZAR, declare and state as follows:
1.

I am employed as a Deputy Executive Officer of the Superior Court of

California, County of Ventura (“Ventura Superior Court” or “Superior Court”). I
am responsible for the overall administrative operations of the Superior Court in the
areas of court processing and courtroom operations. As is relevant to this lawsuit,
“court processing” includes processing of, and access to, all filings with the
Ventura Superior Court, including those filings at the Hall of Justice facility, the
Court’s primary location. In addition, I was responsible for overseeing the
management of all of the Court Processing Assistants (“CPAs”) who work in the
Civil Department of the Superior Court’s Clerk’s Office, including the CPAs who
are assigned to work the public filing windows, the new filings desks, and the
Records and Exhibits Departments. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated
in this Declaration, and I could and would competently and truthfully testify to
these facts if called upon to do so.
2.

It is my understanding that Courthouse News Service (“CNS”) claims

in this action that Ventura Superior Court can and should provide “same-day
access” to newly filed civil unlimited complaints. I provide this declaration to
explain why it is not possible for the Superior Court to provide same-day access.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

A.

Civil Clerk’s Office Staffing And Caseload Generally.

3.

By way of background, Ventura Superior Court’s Civil Department

operates out of two locations, its Hall of Justice Center in Ventura, and its Simi
Valley location. CNS has not insisted on a right of same-day access to newly filed
complaints filed with our Simi Valley court; this declaration will deal only with the
filings at the Hall of Justice facility.
4.

Ventura Superior Court does not maintain filings in electronic format,

and does not require litigants to submit motions, orders and other filings through an

28
-2-

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

online filing system like the federal courts’ Pacer system. Instead, Ventura
Superior Court maintains only standard physical files for all actions pending in the
County of Ventura. Litigants must physically file paper copies of their documents.
They can do so either by depositing them with CPAs in our Civil Department as
described elsewhere in this Declaration, or by faxing or emailing their documents to
the Civil Department, where a CPA must then generate paper documents for our
files. Therefore, unlike the clerk’s office in federal and other electronic filing
courts, the clerk’s office in the Ventura Superior Court is burdened by the
substantial additional administrative task imposed by the need to process by hand
every document filed with the court.
5.

According to our Court Case Management System (“CCMS”), which

maintains our docket of court filings as well as our court calendars, the CPAs in the
civil clerk’s office are responsible for receiving, filing and processing in excess of
151,000 separate filings each year:

15
16

2008 Civil Filings

151,281

2010 Civil Filings

18

144,184

2009 Civil Filings

17

151,203

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6.

The Superior Court currently employs 14 CPAs in the Civil

Department, plus one Civil Department supervisor, to handle all of these filings.
Each of the CPAs is responsible for a particular function or “desk” in the Civil
Department, including the answers and motions, arbitration, fax filings, judgments,
mandatory early settlement conference assignments, motions, new filings and
orders, as well as public filing windows 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
7.

The workload carried by each of our CPAs is very heavy. By way of

example only, Jessica Brown is the CPA III currently responsible for our

-3-

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Mandatory Early Settlement Conference Desk. Despite what the name might
imply, Ms. Brown is responsible for a very high volume of filings that must be
processed on a daily basis. During a typical day, she is responsible for reviewing
and scheduling appropriate case management hearings for approximately 4 to 5
amended complaints, 7 to 8 notices of settlement and 3 to 4 amendments to
complaints. In addition, she is responsible for receiving, processing and inputting
into CCMS 4 to 5 substitution of attorney / notice of change of address forms per
day. Ms. Brown is also responsible for reviewing and scheduling for hearing
petitions for de novo review of wage and hour decisions by the California Division
of Labor Standards Enforcement; for processing Notices of Removal to federal
court; for making settlement officer assignments; and for scheduling settlement
hearings before the settlement officer. She also reviews and schedules in CCMS
follow-up calendars for cases transferred to Ventura Superior Court from other
courts as well as case consolidations ordered by judges of the Superior Court. She
also reviews files in which a proof of service of a new complaint, or status
conference reports, or post-settlement dismissals have not been timely filed, and
schedules OSC hearings in cases in which the appropriate documents have not been
filed by the parties. In addition to these tasks, she is responsible for mailing from
60 to 70 notices and other forms to be served on litigants; for working at one of the
public filing windows for several hours each day; and for answering telephones for
at least an hour per day.
8.

The workloads of the remaining CPAs in the Civil Department are

equally heavy, and will likely increase in the coming year. As explained in the
Notice of Change in Processing of Civil Filings attached to this Declaration as
Exhibit “A,” effective October 11, 2011, CPAs in our Hall of Justice facility in
Ventura assumed responsibility for processing “case initiating papers, including
complaints” for cases filed in our East County courthouse located in Simi Valley:

28
-4-

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

9.

We transferred responsibilities for new case filings to the Hall of

20

Justice facility because reduced staffing at the Simi Valley Courthouse made it

21

difficult to process work in a timely manner.

22

10.

It is possible that further changes to CPA job responsibilities will be

23

implemented in 2012. As explained in the Public Notice of Request for Public

24

Input attached to this Declaration as Exhibit “B,” the Superior Court is now

25

considering whether to relocate the civil courtrooms located in Simi Valley to the

26

Hall of Justice facility in Ventura:

27
28
-5-

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

If this relocation takes effect, it will increase the workload of our Civil Department

13

CPAs.

14

11.

The workload carried by our CPAs has been made even heavier as the

15

result of budgetary shortfalls experienced by the State of California generally and

16

the Ventura Superior Court in particular. These budgetary shortfalls have resulted

17

in mandatory furlough days for our CPAs, as well as a hiring freeze, which

18

effectively prevents us from hiring new CPAs in the clerk’s office when existing

19

CPAs retire or quit. As of the end of September 2011, Ventura Superior Court had

20

no fewer than 42 vacancies for full-time staff positions. 22 of these vacancies arise

21

in my areas of responsibility; four occurred within the civil processing Civil

22

Department and another four occurred in the Records Department.

23

12.

This reduction in staffing levels necessitated a number of changes in

24

the business operations of the clerk’s office. First, we reduced the public business

25

hours for the clerk’s office effective July 1, 2009. As can be seen from this excerpt

26

from the July 1, 2009 memorandum issued to all staff in the clerk’s office, which I

27

approved, the public and telephone hours were reduced so that the doors to the

28

clerk’s office would be closed at 4:00 p.m., rather than 5:00 p.m.:
-6-

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

A complete copy of this July 1, 2009 memorandum is attached to this Declaration
as Exhibit “C.”
13.

To accommodate the change in office hours with the need to accept

filings before 5:00 p.m., the Ventura Superior Court installed a secure drop box
near the clerk’s office on the second floor of the Hall of Justice facility. Civil and
family law filings can be deposited in the drop box for same-day filing at any time
prior to 5:00 p.m. Staff from the Family Law Department or the Civil Department
retrieve documents from the drop box twice each day, at 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Documents retrieved from the drop box are date-stamped “Received” on the back
of the first page, and are then distributed to the appropriate back office CPA for
processing. Dropped documents, including new complaints, are deemed filed on

28
-7-

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

the day they are stamped received. If the documents are processed the next day, our
CPAs are instructed to back-date the file stamp to properly reflect the date upon
which the document is deemed filed.
14.

To further accommodate reduced staffing levels in the clerk’s office,

the Ventura Superior Court changed the procedure by which new complaints are
accepted for filing. The Civil Department receives approximately 8 civil unlimited
complaints, along with literally hundreds of other documents, including answers,
motions and notices of various types, on a daily basis. Prior to June 2010, most of
these complaints were received by CPAs at the public filing windows, who were
responsible for fully opening new files and for issuing summons and related
documents upon receipt. However, the practice of creating new files upon receipt
of complaints at the filing window became increasingly unworkable because of the
small number of open clerk windows; the increasing line of customers waiting for
those windows; the advent of the CCMS filing system, which requires our CPAs to
enter considerably more information regarding a new complaint before a file
number can be generated; the reduction in the number of CPAs available to staff the
public filing windows; and the reduction of hours the clerk’s office could remain
open in light of current budget constraints.
15.

Accordingly, Ventura Superior Court implemented a change to its

filing system effective June 21, 2010. As explained in the following excerpt from
our May 19, 2010 Notice of Counter Filing Changes, which I approved, most new
complaints could only be “dropped off” at the public filing windows, so that they
could be processed by back-counter CPAs:

24
25
26
27
28
-8-

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A complete copy of our May 19, 2010 notice is attached to this Declaration as
Exhibit “D.”
16.

Under this change in procedure, new complaints are date-stamped

“Received” at the public filing window, and given to a behind-the-counter new
filings desk CPA, who is responsible for opening a new file, issuing a case number,
and providing conformed copies to counsel. As is the case with documents
retrieved from the drop box, new complaints received at the public filing window
are deemed filed on the date they are stamped received. If they are received late in
the day and processed at a later time, the new filings desk CPA is instructed to
back-date the file stamp to properly reflect the date upon which the document is
deemed filed.
17.

This change in procedure allowed the clerk’s office to prioritize work
-9-

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

based on the needs of our public customers and bench officers. From the Superior
Court’s standpoint, most new complaint files remain essentially inactive for
approximately 65 days, until the summons and complaint are served, and the
defendant(s) answers or take some other action. Hence, receiving “dropped”
complaints at the public filing window for later processing the same day, allows our
limited staff to deal with other customers waiting in line at the civil filing windows,
and to deal with other pressing issues, including ex parte applications, and other
time sensitive matters.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

B.

CNS’s Demand For “Same-Day Access.”

18.

As a practical matter, CNS’s reporter is the only “reporter” who asks

to see our new case files. The Superior Court only infrequently receives requests
from other reporters for access to case files or new complaints. As is the case with
CNS, we grant other reporters the same access we provide to members of the
general public.
19.

It is my understanding that, prior to November 2010, CNS’s reporter,

Juliana Krolak, only visited our clerk’s office on roughly a weekly basis. In the
2008 – 2009 time period, Ms. Krolak occasionally complained that she could not
locate particular case files that should have been placed in the Media Bin in our
Records Department. We worked with Ms. Krolak and her supervisor, Chris
Marshall, to determine why some files were not being deposited in the Media Bin,
and took steps to ensure that new files were first placed in our Media Bin where
they would remain for approximately one week before being placed in our shelves
for filing.
20.

On or about July 23, 2009, I received the following letter from Mr.

Marshall which confirmed our efforts to route new complaints to the Media Bin:

27
28
- 10 -

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A complete copy of this letter is attached to this Declaration as Exhibit “E.”
21.

It is my understanding that CNS alleges in its complaint that the

Superior Court somehow agreed to an “arrangement” by which “newly filed
complaints were to be made available to Courthouse News’ reporter after some
processing but before the complaints had been fully processed, the result of which
was that access became much more timely.” This allegation is not correct. As
noted above, Ventura Superior Court took steps to ensure that fully processed
complaints were timely deposited in the Records Department Media Bin. For
reasons that will be detailed below, it has never been our practice to grant access to
“partially processed” complaints.
22.

I received another letter from Mr. Marshall more than a year later on

February 7, 2011. Mr. Marshall notified me for the first time in this letter that Ms.
Krolak had been visiting the Superior Court’s Records Department on a daily basis
- 11 -

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3

since November 2010; that CNS hoped that she could review newly filed
complaints on the on the same day they were filed; but that Ms. Krolak had
experienced delays:

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

A copy of Mr. Marshall’s February 7, 2011 letter without exhibits is attached to this
Declaration as Exhibit “F.”
23.

I discussed Mr. Marshall’s letter with Julie Camacho, the Court

Program Manager responsible for CPAs working in the Department. In response,
we issued the following February 17, 2011 email which directs Civil Department
CPAs to make every effort to complete their filings and get them to the Records
Department Media Bin in a timely fashion:

23
24
25
26
27
28
- 12 -

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

A complete copy of the February 17, 2011 email is attached to this Declaration as
Exhibit “G.”
24.

I spoke with Mr. Marshall by telephone sometime in March 2011

about his February 7, 2011 letter. He explained that Ms. Krolak now visited the
Records Department every day, and said that she needed “same-day access.” He
explained that CNS had obtained same-day access from other courts in California,
as demonstrated by the attachment to his letter. He also said that he just needed
access to electronic copies of new complaints, and that, in other courts, CNS
“reporters” could go to a computer terminal and review new complaints on line.
25.

In response, I explained to Mr. Marshall that Ventura Superior Court

was not an electronic filing court like most of the courts identified in his letter; that
we did not image Superior Court filings; that we did not accept any type of efilings; that our filing system was not automated as is the case with the federal court
Pacer system; and that we still manually enter each document into physical files.
Mr. Marshall nonetheless insisted that Ms. Krolak be given access to new
complaints the same day as they were filed.
26.

After speaking with the Superior Court’s staff, including Ms.

Camacho, I spoke to Mr. Marshall again by telephone several days later. I told him

- 13 -

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

that we would do what we could to get newly filed complaints to the Media Bin as
fast as possible; that, if we are able to process new complaints early in the day, we
would put them in the Media Bin on the same day; but that we would otherwise do
our best to process new complaints and deposit them in the Media Bin on the day
after they had been filed. Mr. Marshall said that he and his attorneys would not be
happy with this response.
27.

As a result of these communications with Mr. Marshall, I worked with

Julie Camacho to reprioritize the procedures by which newly filed complaints are
processed and made available to the public in the Superior Court’s Media Bin,
which is located in our Records Department. As explained in the following excerpt
from Ms. Camacho’s March 15, 2011 email to Maria Ochoa, the CPA then assigned
to the new filings desk, we asked Maria to give “the highest priority” to processing
new civil unlimited complaints, so that there could be a two-day turnaround
between the date a new complaint is filed, and the date the newly filed complaint
would be deposited in the Media Bin for public review:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 14 -

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6

A complete copy of our March 15, 2011 email is attached to this Declaration as
Exhibit “H.”
28.

While we cannot guarantee a two-day turnaround to the Media Bin in

all cases for the reasons explained below, Ms. Camacho’s March 15, 2011 email
confirms our current practice with respect to filing of, and access to, newly filed
civil unlimited complaints.

7
8

C.

It Is Not Possible For Ventura Superior Court To Provide “SameDay Access” To Newly Filed Civil Unlimited Complaints.

29.

Since at least March 2011, Ventura Superior Court has given “the

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

highest priority” to filing civil unlimited complaints so that they can be forwarded
to the Media Bin in the Records Department for public review. Indeed, in
approximately August of this year, we obtained an exception from the courtwide
hiring freeze in order to hire a new CPA in the Civil Department, and we then
assigned a second CPA to the new filings desk. The “first priority” of this second
CPA is to identify and process newly filed civil unlimited complaints.
30.

It is my understanding that CNS remains unsatisfied with the speed by

which newly filed civil unlimited complaints are processed and routed to the Media
Bin in the Records Department for review. However, from my perspective as
Deputy Executive Officer of the Superior Court, it is not possible to guarantee
“same-day access” to newly filed civil unlimited complaints for at least the
following reasons.
31.

First, it is important to note that newly filed civil unlimited complaints

can be “dropped” with the Superior Court for filing in a number of different ways.
For example, newly filed complaints can be dropped for filing: (a) with a CPA at
the public filing windows in the clerk’s office, as described above; (b) in the after
hours drop box described above, which is only accessed at 4:30 and 5:00 p.m. each
day; (c) by messenger services that deliver a number of filings for a number of

- 15 -

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

cases in bulk to unattended Window 14, usually in the afternoon; (d) by mail, which
is delivered to the new filings desk twice daily; and (e) via “fax filing” and “email
filing,” by which new complaints are received electronically, and are thereafter
printed and processed by the assigned CPA. In addition, civil unlimited complaints
that are dropped for filing at the Simi Valley Courthouse are retrieved and delivered
to the new filings desk once a day by a Superior Court courier. As explained
above, new civil unlimited complaints that are “dropped” in any of these locations
are marked “received” on the date they are delivered. However, delivery of these
complaints to the new filings desk can be delayed by a day or more (in the event of
an intervening weekend) if they are “dropped” late in the day, or not delivered to
the new filings desk until later that day or early the next morning. The Superior
Court has no control over the timing by which new complaints are “dropped” for
filing, and cannot guarantee same-day access to these complaints for that reason.
32.

Second, furloughs and court closures necessitated by our budgetary

shortfalls also preclude the Ventura Superior Court from guaranteeing “same-day
access” to newly filed civil unlimited complaints. As explained in the Superior
Court’s September 22, 2011 press release attached to this Declaration as Exhibit
“I,” the Superior Court’s Clerk’s Office will be closed to the public on “November
23, 2011, December 23, 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2011 to mitigate the impact of additional
unpaid employee furlough days on court operations.” However, newly filed
complaints can still be deposited in the Superior Court’s drop box, and as explained
elsewhere in this Declaration, they will be deemed filed as of the date they are
stamped “received.” However, it will not be possible to grant “same-day access” to
these newly filed complaints when the Superior Court’s Clerk’s Office is closed.
33.

Second, it is not possible to guarantee “same-day access” to

complaints that are immediately assigned to judicial officers. This category
includes cases in which plaintiffs simultaneously file complaints and ex parte

28
- 16 -

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

applications for temporary restraining orders; complaints for which plaintiffs seek
fee waivers which must be approved by a judicial officer before the complaint can
be accepted for processing; and complaints filed on behalf of minors by guardians
ad litem, who must be appointed as guardians by a judicial officer before the
complaint can be accepted for processing. Newly filed civil unlimited complaints
that are immediately assigned to judicial officers may remain in chambers for
anywhere from one to several days or longer depending on whether the assigned
judicial officer needs to retain the file for further action. The Superior Court is not
in a position to guarantee same-day access to these files for this reason.
34.

Third, it is not possible to guarantee “same-day access” to newly filed

civil unlimited complaints that are processed by newly appointed CPAs. One of the
Superior Court’s highest responsibilities is to ensure and promote public trust and
confidence in the Court and its filings. The Superior Court cannot satisfy this
responsibility unless it ensures that its files are in good order, and are complete and
accurate. Hence, complaints that are processed by newly appointed CPAs are
subject to a quality control review in which new files are routed to Ms. Martha
McLaughlin, Court Program Supervisor II in charge of the Civil Department, who
is responsible for supervising Civil CPAs. It is not uncommon for new CPAs
improperly to process incomplete complaints that should be rejected; to improperly
enter crucial case data that would impair CCMS from properly tracking and
assigning the case; and to improperly enter contact information for attorneys.
These complaints are not ready for review, by the press or other members of the
general public. Instead, Ms. McLaughlin refers the complaint and its file back to
the newly hired CPA who must correct and resubmit the file for final review and
approval. Newly filed civil unlimited complaints are placed in the Media Bin in the
Records Department by Ms. McLaughlin only after they have been corrected and
approved. Once the file is approved, Ms. McLaughlin walks it to the Media Bin;

28
- 17 -

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4

the new filings CPA then deals with conformed copies. This quality control
process could take from one to several days. The Superior Court is not in a position
to guarantee same-day access to complaints processed by newly appointed CPAs
for this reason.

5
6

D.

It Is Not Possible To Allow CNS Reporters “Behind The Counter”
To Review Newly Filed Complaints Before They Are Processed.

35.

It has been suggested that we could ensure more timely access to

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

newly filed civil unlimited complaints by allowing Ms. Krolak to go “behind the
counter” in the Civil Department and to review dropped complaints that have not
been processed, filed and approved for public viewing. This suggestion is not
workable for a number of reasons.
36.

First, the Superior Court’s security procedures were tightened

considerably after the occurrence of a shooting incident involving an Employment
Development Department employee in Oxnard. The Superior Court’s current
policies prohibit members of the general public from accessing processing desks
where new civil unlimited complaints are maintained prior to processing.
37.

Second, the Superior Court cannot allow CNS or other members of the

public to review new civil unlimited complaints until they are filed to ensure that
the Court respects the privacy of litigants. For example, litigants who file fee
waiver requests must include personal financial information with their fee waiver
requests. These requests are kept with the complaints they accompany until after
they are assigned to a judicial officer and processed by a CPA. It would be
inappropriate to grant access to these confidential records.
38.

Allowing members of the public access to new complaints before they

are filed also violates the Superior Court’s accounting protocols. New complaints
cannot be processed or filed until the plaintiff or plaintiffs have paid the proper
filing fee. Filing fees usually are paid by check, which are attached to a new

- 18 -

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

complaint until it is processed. The Superior Court requires CPAs to balance out
each day and has established strict cash handling and audit procedures to ensure
that moneys deposited with the Superior Court are secure. It is inconsistent with
these protocols and procedures to allow public access to those areas of the clerk’s
office, including the new filings desk, where filing fees are maintained.
39.

Quality control concerns also counsel against allowing the general

public to review new complaints before they are filed. As noted above, one of the
Superior Court’s highest responsibilities is to ensure and promote public trust and
confidence in the Court and its filings. The Superior Court does not satisfy this
responsibility by allowing access to new complaints that may be rejected for filing,
or that are in some way incomplete.
40.

Finally, but perhaps more importantly, it is my understanding that the

Superior Court’s current practice of granting access to civil unlimited complaints
after they have been processed and filed complies with California law. In
particular, it is my understanding that the Superior Court’s practice of granting
access to newly filed civil unlimited complaints once they are processed and placed
in the Records Department Media Bin complies with California Government Code
section 68150, which grants a right of “reasonable access” to “court records,”
which is defined by Government Code section 68151 to include, “[a]ll filed papers
and documents in the case folder, but if no case folder is created by the court, all
filed papers and documents that would have been in the case folder if one had been
created.”
41.

Similarly, it is my understanding that the Ventura Superior Court’s

practice is consistent with the provisions of California Rule of Court 2.400(a),
which provides that, “[o]nly the clerk may remove and replace records in the
court’s files,” and that, “[u]nless otherwise provided by these rules or ordered by
the court, court records may only be inspected by the public in the office of the

28
- 19 -

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1

clerk.”

2
3
4

E.

Summary.

42.

The Ventura Superior Court has not enacted a blanket policy against

5

granting same-day access to newly filed civil unlimited complaints. To the

6

contrary, the Superior Court recognizes the role the First Amendment plays in our

7

society, and does not and will not deny access to documents maintained in its

8

public files.

9

43.

In addition, the Superior Court has granted, and will continue to grant

10

“reasonable access” to its public files, including newly filed civil unlimited

11

complaints, to all members of the public, including the press. It is for these reasons

12

that we have made it our “highest priority” to process and file civil unlimited

13

complaints so that they can be forwarded to the Media Bin in the Records

14

Department for public review. However, given current staffing and financial

15

constraints, it is not possible or practical for the Superior Court to guarantee “same-

16

day access” to newly filed civil unlimited complaints as CNS demands.

17

44.

In this regard, I wholeheartedly agree with the statements of the

18

California Judicial Council when it explained its opposition to CNS’s proposed

19

“same-day access” legislation as follows:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Many courts are unable to meet the same day standard because they must
complete basic case processing tasks before they release the records to the
public in order to ensure that they do not release confidential information,
that the filing is valid (e.g. it is accompanied by the appropriate filing fee and
is directed to the proper court), and to have sufficient information such that
the court can protect the accuracy and integrity of the record prior to its
release. These tasks are important functions of the court in its role as
custodian of these records, and the speed with which access is provided must
be reasonably balanced with these responsibilities. . . . On any given day the
volume of filings may be such that courts cannot satisfy both requirements if they perform the required screening, they will not be able to release records
on the day that they are received.

28
- 20 -

Declaration of Cheryl Kanatzar ISO
Deft’s Opp. to Plf’s Mot. for Prelim. Inj.
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

EXHIBIT “A”

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT A

22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 23 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT A

23

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

EXHIBIT “B”

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 24 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT B

24

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 25 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT B

25

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

EXHIBIT “C”

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 26 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT C

26

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 27 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT C

27

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 28 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT C

28

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

EXHIBIT “D”

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 29 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT D

29

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 30 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT D

30

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

EXHIBIT “E”

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 31 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT E

31

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 32 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT E

32

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

EXHIBIT “F”

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 33 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT F

33

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 34 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT F

34

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 35 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT F

35

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 36 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT F

36

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

EXHIBIT “G”

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 37 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT G

37

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 38 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT G

38

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

EXHIBIT “H”

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 39 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT H

39

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 40 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT H

40

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

EXHIBIT “I”

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 41 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT I

41

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 42 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT I

42

D

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 43 -

Exhibits To Kanatzar Declaration
Case No. CV 11-08083 R (MANx)

EXHIBIT I

43

D