Blogs

By: @Mustafa Hessabi, CSDA Chief Counsel 

The year is off to a busy start, and that includes CSDA efforts to represent the voice of special districts in the courts. CSDA represents the interests of independent special districts wherever law or policy is made – including the courts – and has acted in key cases described below that may influence the how public agencies operate. CSDA receives insights on its amicus efforts from the Legal Advisory Working Group, comprised of attorneys throughout the state with experience serving the unique needs of special districts and the communities they serve.

You can find more information on cases from 2025 by reviewing our previous update in the CSDA eNews issue from January 20. All amicus actions filed by CSDA can be found in the Legal Tracking Library on the CSDA website: https://www.csda.net/viewdocument/2026.  

Details regarding recent actions CSDA has taken on cases in the appeals process are provided below:

1. Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water, et al. (Supreme Court of California)

The Supreme Court of California has granted review in this case to resolve the following question:

“When a public entity files an eminent domain action seeking to take privately held public utility property, and the owner objects to the right to take, what is the proper standard of judicial review for the trial court to apply to determine whether the property owner has rebutted the presumptions under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1245.250, subdivision (b) and 1240.650, subdivision (c)?” (Emphasis added.)

This case involves an effort by the Town of Apple Valley to acquire by eminent domain a private water system. The town adopted two separate resolutions of necessity, and after a 67-day bench trial, the trial court dismissed the town’s claim, applying independent judgment and ruling that the Town had not established a “more necessary public use.” The town filed an appeal, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal published an opinion to reverse the trial court’s decision, finding that trial courts must review a municipality’s resolution of necessity under the gross abuse of discretion standard because such resolutions are entitled to judicial deference. The Supreme Court granted review thereafter.

CSDA joined an amicus brief in support of the Town of Apple Valley, arguing that: legislative actions such as an eminent domain resolution of necessity are entitled deferential review, and that a gross abuse of discretion standard should be applied by any court reviewing a local agency determination for eminent domain taking purposes. The case has been fully briefed, however oral arguments have not been scheduled yet. CSDA will continue to monitor the case for developments.  

2. San Diego Unified Port District v. Castanares (Fourth District Court of Appeal)

CSDA became involved in this case to highlight the importance of upholding the attorney-client privilege of reports of confidential workplace investigations including exhibits counsel transmit to their public agency clients. The trial court in this case erred in finding the privilege covered an attorney’s report to the district, but somehow not the attachments transmitted with the report to the district as confidential attorney-client communication, which it declared must be produced pursuant to a request under the California Public Records Act. As stated in the local government amicus brief, this result is not only incongruous and contradicts settled law but, if upheld, it would undermine public policy in protecting confidential communications between attorney and client in the course of their relationship regardless of the content and regardless of whether the communication includes information or documents that might be discoverable through some other means. Allowing courts to parse exhibits to attorney-client communications for privilege would be significantly detrimental for lawyers conducting confidential workplace investigations as well as their public agency clients.

In this case, the Port argued that two records and all 102 attachments are protected by the attorney-work product and attorney-client privileges and therefore are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. The Court ordered the preparation of a privilege log and two amendments to the privilege log to reflect a description of each record, date, who prepared the record, and in the case of the interviews, who was interviewed and whether there were any third parties present.

CSDA joined a brief in support of the Port, arguing that the confidential summary report and associated attachments are protected by the attorney-client privilege, and the CPRA does not require the disclosure of records attached as exhibits to a privileged attorney-client communication. In addition, public policy favors maintaining exhibits to confidential communications as exempt from disclosure under the CPRA.

The case is now pending in the Fourth District, with additional supplemental briefing requested by the court.