Save Our Libraries complaint against Santa Clarita
Content
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
DONALD W. RICKETTS (CSBN 39825) 28855 Kenroy Avenue Santa Clarita, CA 91387 Phone (661) 250-3091 Facsimile (661) 250-1767 FINAL DRAFT Attorney for Plaintiffs SAVE OUR LIBRARY,
and SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COME NOW Plaintiffs and complain of Defendants, and each of them, and allege as follows: -1FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
SAVE OUR LIBRARY, a California unincorporated membership association;
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) individuals; individually and in the ) public interest, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, } a political subdivision of the State ) of California; KENNETH R. ) PULSKAMP, City Manager of the ) City of Santa Clarita, in his official ) capacity and not as an individual; ) DARREN HERNANDEZ, Deputy ) City Manager & Director of ) Administrative Services of the City ) of Santa Clarita, in his official ) capacity and not as an individual; ) and DOES1-50, ) ) Defendants ) ________________________________ )
No. ____________
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF RELIEF
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
1.
Plaintiff SAVE OUR LIBRARY (“SOL”), is a California
unincorporated membership association with a principal place of business in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 2. Plaintiffs
are individuals residing in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, are members of SOL, and patrons of the Los Angeles County Free Library System. 3. 4. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and in the public interest. Defendant CITY OF SANTA CLARITA (“SANTA CLARITA” or
“CITY”) is a California charter city and a political subdivision of the State of California. 5. Defendant KENNETH R. PULSKAMP (“PULSKAMP”) is City
Manager of Defendant SANTA CLARITA and is sued herein in his official capacity and not individually. 6. Defendant DARREN HERNANDEZ (“HERNANDEZ”) is Deputy
City Manager and Director of Administrative Services of Defendant SANTA CLARITA and is sued herein in his official capacity and not individually. 7. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and identities of the
Defendants sued herein by the fictitious names DOES 1-50, and will amend their complaint at the time they become known to them. Said fictitiously named Defendants participated in and/or performed the acts hereinafter alleged. 8. Pursuant to California Education Code section 19100, et seq., the
County of Los Angeles (“County”) established and maintains a Free Library System within its boundaries. 9. Defendant CITY elected to join the County’s Free Library System and -2FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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
the County has established and maintains within the CITY, libraries located in the Newhall, Valencia and Canyon Country neighborhoods. 10. Prior to the dates alleged herein, Defendant CITY resolved to
construct a new library in Newhall to replace the present Newhall library. The building would be owned by defendant CITY and maintained and operated by the County as part of its Free Library System. 11. In 2008 the CITY’s City Council established an ad hoc committee to
explore means of funding the construction of the new Newhall Library. The committee was originally composed of Council Member s TimBen Boydston and Marsha McLean. Council Member Boydston was subsequently replaced by Council Member Laurie Ender. 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at a date
and time unknown to plaintiffs, the focus of the ad hoc committee changed to explore the prospect of privatizing the CITY’s libraries. 13. Prior to June 16, 2010, Defendant CITY and the County entered into
negotiations for a contract for the County to operate the new Newhall library. 14. At the same time that defendant CITY was negotiating with the
County regarding the terms and conditions for operation and maintenance of the new Newhall Library, defendant HERNANDEZ met with representatives of Library Systems & Services, LLC (“LSSI US”) to explore the possibility of having LSSI operate and maintain the libraries, if the CITY withdrew from the County’s Free Library System. 15. LSSI US, is a sister corporation of Library Systems & Services UK,
Ltd., a British corporation. Both appear to be under common management. 16. On or about June 16, 2010, the County submitted to the CITY a draft
memorandum of understanding for operation of the new Newhall library. 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that no further
discussions were held between the County and CITY regarding operation of the -3FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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
new Newhall Library 18. Prior to July 13, 2010, the deliberations of the Councils ad hoc
committee on the library, and Defendant HERNANDEZ’S discussions with LSSI US were not widely known and certain individuals have alleged that Brown Act violations occurred. No records of the deliberations and activities of the ad hoc committee and Defendant HERNANDEZ’s discussions/negotiations with LSSI US were produced by the CITY pursuant to requests by SOL and several individuals pursuant to California’s Public Records Act. 19. On July 13, 2010, at the last meeting of the City Council prior to its
summer recess, Council Member Laurie Ender, a member of the ad hoc committee, and Defendant HERNANDEZ, suggested that the CITY withdraw from the County’s Free Library System. No mention was made of a possible contract with LSSI US to operate the libraries. The matter was placed on the City Council’s agenda for August 24, 2010, the first City Council meeting after the Summer recess. 20. On July 16, 2010, Council Member Ender published an article in the
local newspaper again suggesting that the CITY “assume responsibility for providing library services in Santa Clarita.” No mention was made that the City was considering the possibility of privatizing the libraries by contracting with LSSI US. 21. On August 8 and 11, 2010, the CITY issued a request for proposals
“seeking a contractor to deliver library services in the City of Santa Clarita [to] manage all aspects of the day to day administration of the libraries.” 22. On June 10, 2010, one month before the CITY issued the request for
proposals, LSSI US submitted a proposal to the CITY to operate the CITY’S libraries. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of LSSI US’s letter transmitting the proposal to the CITY 23. The proposal from LSSI US was the only proposal received by the CITY -4FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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
for operation of the CITY’s libraries. 24. On August 24, 2010, in the face of opposition by hundreds of people
who attended the City Council meeting, and in the absence of virtually any support from the public, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-71 providing that “the City of Santa Clarita no longer desires to be part of the Los Angeles County Free Library System and that the City of Santa Clarita will assume responsibility for the delivery of public library services within the City of Santa Clarita effective July1, 2011.” It authorized Defendants PULSKAMP and HERNANDEZ and others “to take such actions as the City Manager deems necessary to carry out, effectuate, implement, and fulfill the actions taken”. It loaned $250,000 to the Public Library Fund. A true and correct copy of Resolution 10-71 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 25. Defendant PULSKAMP has, in numerous writings, stated that the
CITY has entered into a contract with LSSI US to operate the CITY’s libraries, though none has been made public. 26. In response to the CITY’s notice to the County that it was
withdrawing from the County’s Free Library System, the County has, inter alia, advised the CITY that it will no longer provide funds for renovation of the Canyon Country Library which has been closed for over a month now to allow the renovations to proceed. As a result, access to the Canyon Country library will be unavailable to Plaintiffs and the public for an indefinite period. 27 By withdrawing from the County’s Free Library System, the CITY is
obligated, pursuant to California law, to pay to the County the fair market value of the County’s library real property (buildings and land) and personal property (books, computer systems, etc.). The City has estimated the cost and operating expenses at $16.1 million. 28 The CITY proposes to meet this financial obligation, and to pay for
future ongoing operating expenses of the libraries it will own, and its bonded -5FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
indebtedness for the new Newhall library, by contracting with LSSI US to operate the CITY’s libraries. The net effect is an increase in taxes and capital expenditures to modify the operations of well-operated libraries that the public will pay for. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION vs. All Defendants for an Injunction 29. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, the same as though fully
set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 28 above. 30. Plaintiffs and members of the public gained library privileges by
providing to the County personal information. 31. In addition, at the time a library patron borrows books from the
library, uses computers maintained in the library, or otherwise avail themselves of the library’s facilities and services, information regarding these activities are placed in an electronic database, including information on books borrowed by the patrons and searches made by patrons on the library’s computer terminals. 32. California Government Code sections 6250, 6254(j) and 6267 (portions
of California’s Public Records Act, “CPRA”) provide as follows: “6250. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” “6254. Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following: * * * * *
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
“(j) Library circulation records kept for the purpose of identifying the borrower of items available in libraries, and library and museum materials made or acquired and presented solely for reference or exhibition purposes. The exemption in this subdivision shall not apply to records of fines imposed on the borrowers.” “6267. All registration and circulation records of any library which is in whole or in part supported by public funds shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, local agency, or state agency except as follows:
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) By a person acting within the scope of his or her duties within the administration of the library. “(b) By a person authorized, in writing, by the individual to whom the records pertain, to inspect the records. “(c) By order of the appropriate superior court.” 33. California Constitution Article 1 provides:
“SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are . . . privacy. “SEC. 3(b)(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy . . . .” 34. Defendant CITY is a “local agency” within the meaning of the CPRA
and it and its defendant employs and officers named herein are subject to its provisions. 35. The management of “all aspects of the day to day administration of
the libraries” requires access to the information which the patrons provided to the libraries to gain library privileges and the information which the County has subsequently gathered regarding books borrowed, computer usage, fines, etc. Pursuant to the Constitution and the Public Records Act all such information is private and confidential. 36. Giving LSSI US that data, or access to it, violates Plaintiffs privacy
rights and the privacy rights of all library patrons. 37. Equally improper would be to allow LSSI US to gather the data anew,
as a condition of continued library privileges and collecting usage data (often generally referred to as the “borrowing history”). The data is still confidential and may not be gathered or used by a private company as a condition of continued use of the books and other resources of publicly owned libraries, operated on publicly owned facilities, by public employees who are directly subject to California law. 38. The right of the Plaintiffs and all library patrons to privacy and
confidentiality regarding their library usage honor a person’s desire to make their -7FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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
lives public or not, to receive or decline unwanted commercial solicitations which can be targeted based upon an analysis of their interests as shown by the books they borrow and searches on the internet through library computer terminals, and provide a measure of protection against identity theft. 39. Placing that data in the hands of a private, for-profit corporation, with
non-public employees and connections to foreign entities not subject to U.S. laws dilutes, at least, those protections and the damage done by doing so is irreparable and cannot be fully compensated for by damage actions, individual or class, for privacy violations. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION vs. All Defendants for Declaratory Relief 40. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, the same as though fully set
forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 39, above. 41. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations herein and there exists between
Plaintiffs and Defendants a controversy regarding the respective rights and duties of the parties. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. Under the First Cause of Action, an order by the court restraining
defendants from: A. Entering into a contract with LSSI US for operation of the CITY’s libraries or, if a contract has been entered into, restraining Defendants from carrying out its provisions; B. Giving, furnishing, or providing to LSSI US the personal information of its borrowers, including their identity and borrowing/computer usage history, or allowing it to gather such information; and, C. An award of attorney’s fees and costs; and, 2. Under the Second Cause of Action: -8FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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.
A declaration that Defendants may not give or furnish to LSSI
US, or allow it to access personal information regarding Plaintiffs and all library patrons, and their usage of library facilities and things, or allow LSSI US to collect such information; and, B. An award of attorney’s fees and costs.
DATED: October 3, 2010 __________________________________ DONALD W. RICKETTS Attorney for Plaintiffs
-9FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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 1. declares as follows:
VERIFICATION
I am one of the plaintiffs in the above-entitled action. The following matters are
within my personal knowledge and, if called as a witness herein, I would be competent and qualified to and would testify thereto. 2. 3. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. The facts set forth in the foregoing complaint are, except where stated on
information and belief, within my personal knowledge or the knowledge of my attorney. As to matters stated on information and belief, I believe they are true and correct. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed this 3rd day of October 2010, at Santa Clarita, California.
___________________________________
-10FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
DONALD W. RICKETTS (CSBN 39825) 28855 Kenroy Avenue Santa Clarita, CA 91387 Phone (661) 250-3091 Facsimile (661) 250-1767 FINAL DRAFT Attorney for Plaintiffs SAVE OUR LIBRARY,
and SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 10 NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COME NOW Plaintiffs and complain of Defendants, and each of them, and allege as follows: -1FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
SAVE OUR LIBRARY, a California unincorporated membership association;
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) individuals; individually and in the ) public interest, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) ) CITY OF SANTA CLARITA, } a political subdivision of the State ) of California; KENNETH R. ) PULSKAMP, City Manager of the ) City of Santa Clarita, in his official ) capacity and not as an individual; ) DARREN HERNANDEZ, Deputy ) City Manager & Director of ) Administrative Services of the City ) of Santa Clarita, in his official ) capacity and not as an individual; ) and DOES1-50, ) ) Defendants ) ________________________________ )
No. ____________
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF RELIEF
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
1.
Plaintiff SAVE OUR LIBRARY (“SOL”), is a California
unincorporated membership association with a principal place of business in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California. 2. Plaintiffs
are individuals residing in the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, State of California, are members of SOL, and patrons of the Los Angeles County Free Library System. 3. 4. Plaintiffs bring this action individually and in the public interest. Defendant CITY OF SANTA CLARITA (“SANTA CLARITA” or
“CITY”) is a California charter city and a political subdivision of the State of California. 5. Defendant KENNETH R. PULSKAMP (“PULSKAMP”) is City
Manager of Defendant SANTA CLARITA and is sued herein in his official capacity and not individually. 6. Defendant DARREN HERNANDEZ (“HERNANDEZ”) is Deputy
City Manager and Director of Administrative Services of Defendant SANTA CLARITA and is sued herein in his official capacity and not individually. 7. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and identities of the
Defendants sued herein by the fictitious names DOES 1-50, and will amend their complaint at the time they become known to them. Said fictitiously named Defendants participated in and/or performed the acts hereinafter alleged. 8. Pursuant to California Education Code section 19100, et seq., the
County of Los Angeles (“County”) established and maintains a Free Library System within its boundaries. 9. Defendant CITY elected to join the County’s Free Library System and -2FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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
the County has established and maintains within the CITY, libraries located in the Newhall, Valencia and Canyon Country neighborhoods. 10. Prior to the dates alleged herein, Defendant CITY resolved to
construct a new library in Newhall to replace the present Newhall library. The building would be owned by defendant CITY and maintained and operated by the County as part of its Free Library System. 11. In 2008 the CITY’s City Council established an ad hoc committee to
explore means of funding the construction of the new Newhall Library. The committee was originally composed of Council Member s TimBen Boydston and Marsha McLean. Council Member Boydston was subsequently replaced by Council Member Laurie Ender. 12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at a date
and time unknown to plaintiffs, the focus of the ad hoc committee changed to explore the prospect of privatizing the CITY’s libraries. 13. Prior to June 16, 2010, Defendant CITY and the County entered into
negotiations for a contract for the County to operate the new Newhall library. 14. At the same time that defendant CITY was negotiating with the
County regarding the terms and conditions for operation and maintenance of the new Newhall Library, defendant HERNANDEZ met with representatives of Library Systems & Services, LLC (“LSSI US”) to explore the possibility of having LSSI operate and maintain the libraries, if the CITY withdrew from the County’s Free Library System. 15. LSSI US, is a sister corporation of Library Systems & Services UK,
Ltd., a British corporation. Both appear to be under common management. 16. On or about June 16, 2010, the County submitted to the CITY a draft
memorandum of understanding for operation of the new Newhall library. 17. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that no further
discussions were held between the County and CITY regarding operation of the -3FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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
new Newhall Library 18. Prior to July 13, 2010, the deliberations of the Councils ad hoc
committee on the library, and Defendant HERNANDEZ’S discussions with LSSI US were not widely known and certain individuals have alleged that Brown Act violations occurred. No records of the deliberations and activities of the ad hoc committee and Defendant HERNANDEZ’s discussions/negotiations with LSSI US were produced by the CITY pursuant to requests by SOL and several individuals pursuant to California’s Public Records Act. 19. On July 13, 2010, at the last meeting of the City Council prior to its
summer recess, Council Member Laurie Ender, a member of the ad hoc committee, and Defendant HERNANDEZ, suggested that the CITY withdraw from the County’s Free Library System. No mention was made of a possible contract with LSSI US to operate the libraries. The matter was placed on the City Council’s agenda for August 24, 2010, the first City Council meeting after the Summer recess. 20. On July 16, 2010, Council Member Ender published an article in the
local newspaper again suggesting that the CITY “assume responsibility for providing library services in Santa Clarita.” No mention was made that the City was considering the possibility of privatizing the libraries by contracting with LSSI US. 21. On August 8 and 11, 2010, the CITY issued a request for proposals
“seeking a contractor to deliver library services in the City of Santa Clarita [to] manage all aspects of the day to day administration of the libraries.” 22. On June 10, 2010, one month before the CITY issued the request for
proposals, LSSI US submitted a proposal to the CITY to operate the CITY’S libraries. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of LSSI US’s letter transmitting the proposal to the CITY 23. The proposal from LSSI US was the only proposal received by the CITY -4FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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
for operation of the CITY’s libraries. 24. On August 24, 2010, in the face of opposition by hundreds of people
who attended the City Council meeting, and in the absence of virtually any support from the public, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 10-71 providing that “the City of Santa Clarita no longer desires to be part of the Los Angeles County Free Library System and that the City of Santa Clarita will assume responsibility for the delivery of public library services within the City of Santa Clarita effective July1, 2011.” It authorized Defendants PULSKAMP and HERNANDEZ and others “to take such actions as the City Manager deems necessary to carry out, effectuate, implement, and fulfill the actions taken”. It loaned $250,000 to the Public Library Fund. A true and correct copy of Resolution 10-71 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 25. Defendant PULSKAMP has, in numerous writings, stated that the
CITY has entered into a contract with LSSI US to operate the CITY’s libraries, though none has been made public. 26. In response to the CITY’s notice to the County that it was
withdrawing from the County’s Free Library System, the County has, inter alia, advised the CITY that it will no longer provide funds for renovation of the Canyon Country Library which has been closed for over a month now to allow the renovations to proceed. As a result, access to the Canyon Country library will be unavailable to Plaintiffs and the public for an indefinite period. 27 By withdrawing from the County’s Free Library System, the CITY is
obligated, pursuant to California law, to pay to the County the fair market value of the County’s library real property (buildings and land) and personal property (books, computer systems, etc.). The City has estimated the cost and operating expenses at $16.1 million. 28 The CITY proposes to meet this financial obligation, and to pay for
future ongoing operating expenses of the libraries it will own, and its bonded -5FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
indebtedness for the new Newhall library, by contracting with LSSI US to operate the CITY’s libraries. The net effect is an increase in taxes and capital expenditures to modify the operations of well-operated libraries that the public will pay for. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION vs. All Defendants for an Injunction 29. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, the same as though fully
set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 28 above. 30. Plaintiffs and members of the public gained library privileges by
providing to the County personal information. 31. In addition, at the time a library patron borrows books from the
library, uses computers maintained in the library, or otherwise avail themselves of the library’s facilities and services, information regarding these activities are placed in an electronic database, including information on books borrowed by the patrons and searches made by patrons on the library’s computer terminals. 32. California Government Code sections 6250, 6254(j) and 6267 (portions
of California’s Public Records Act, “CPRA”) provide as follows: “6250. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” “6254. Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following: * * * * *
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
“(j) Library circulation records kept for the purpose of identifying the borrower of items available in libraries, and library and museum materials made or acquired and presented solely for reference or exhibition purposes. The exemption in this subdivision shall not apply to records of fines imposed on the borrowers.” “6267. All registration and circulation records of any library which is in whole or in part supported by public funds shall remain confidential and shall not be disclosed to any person, local agency, or state agency except as follows:
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) By a person acting within the scope of his or her duties within the administration of the library. “(b) By a person authorized, in writing, by the individual to whom the records pertain, to inspect the records. “(c) By order of the appropriate superior court.” 33. California Constitution Article 1 provides:
“SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are . . . privacy. “SEC. 3(b)(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy . . . .” 34. Defendant CITY is a “local agency” within the meaning of the CPRA
and it and its defendant employs and officers named herein are subject to its provisions. 35. The management of “all aspects of the day to day administration of
the libraries” requires access to the information which the patrons provided to the libraries to gain library privileges and the information which the County has subsequently gathered regarding books borrowed, computer usage, fines, etc. Pursuant to the Constitution and the Public Records Act all such information is private and confidential. 36. Giving LSSI US that data, or access to it, violates Plaintiffs privacy
rights and the privacy rights of all library patrons. 37. Equally improper would be to allow LSSI US to gather the data anew,
as a condition of continued library privileges and collecting usage data (often generally referred to as the “borrowing history”). The data is still confidential and may not be gathered or used by a private company as a condition of continued use of the books and other resources of publicly owned libraries, operated on publicly owned facilities, by public employees who are directly subject to California law. 38. The right of the Plaintiffs and all library patrons to privacy and
confidentiality regarding their library usage honor a person’s desire to make their -7FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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
lives public or not, to receive or decline unwanted commercial solicitations which can be targeted based upon an analysis of their interests as shown by the books they borrow and searches on the internet through library computer terminals, and provide a measure of protection against identity theft. 39. Placing that data in the hands of a private, for-profit corporation, with
non-public employees and connections to foreign entities not subject to U.S. laws dilutes, at least, those protections and the damage done by doing so is irreparable and cannot be fully compensated for by damage actions, individual or class, for privacy violations. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION vs. All Defendants for Declaratory Relief 40. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, the same as though fully set
forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 39, above. 41. Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations herein and there exists between
Plaintiffs and Defendants a controversy regarding the respective rights and duties of the parties. WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. Under the First Cause of Action, an order by the court restraining
defendants from: A. Entering into a contract with LSSI US for operation of the CITY’s libraries or, if a contract has been entered into, restraining Defendants from carrying out its provisions; B. Giving, furnishing, or providing to LSSI US the personal information of its borrowers, including their identity and borrowing/computer usage history, or allowing it to gather such information; and, C. An award of attorney’s fees and costs; and, 2. Under the Second Cause of Action: -8FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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.
A declaration that Defendants may not give or furnish to LSSI
US, or allow it to access personal information regarding Plaintiffs and all library patrons, and their usage of library facilities and things, or allow LSSI US to collect such information; and, B. An award of attorney’s fees and costs.
DATED: October 3, 2010 __________________________________ DONALD W. RICKETTS Attorney for Plaintiffs
-9FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
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 1. declares as follows:
VERIFICATION
I am one of the plaintiffs in the above-entitled action. The following matters are
within my personal knowledge and, if called as a witness herein, I would be competent and qualified to and would testify thereto. 2. 3. I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. The facts set forth in the foregoing complaint are, except where stated on
information and belief, within my personal knowledge or the knowledge of my attorney. As to matters stated on information and belief, I believe they are true and correct. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed this 3rd day of October 2010, at Santa Clarita, California.
___________________________________
-10FINAL DRAFT COM PLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE & DECLARATORY RELIEF
