Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Report on Three Former Professors Accused of Misconduct Is Not Exempt Under CPRA
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A 60-page report by the law firm of Hueston Hennigan, LLP detailing its investigation into alleged misconduct on the part of three UCLA professors does not constitute a personnel record that is exempt from disclosure, Div. Eight of the Court of Appeal for this district held Friday, ordering that the report and other documents be released to the Los Angeles Times.
The investigation was sparked by a whistleblower complaint about the professors, whose identities have been shielded. Although the law firm found wrongdoing, the three entered into settlements with the university under which no misconduct was found but they resigned.
On July 18, 2022, the Times made a request under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) for copy of the law firm’s findings—denominated the “Hueston Report.” It also sought materials “related to the whistleblower complaint...about international students in the orthodontics section of the dentistry school being asked to pay unauthorized fees or donations,” and for notices of UCLA’s intent to fire the three faculty members.
Then-Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff (now mediator/arbitrator) on Nov. 14, 2022, denied a preliminary injunction the professors to block a release of materials to the Times, saying that “substantial privacy interests must yield to the public’s right to know for purposes of this motion.” That decision was appealed.
Div. Eight issued a stay, ordering that there be university no release pending resolution of the appeal. That resolution came Friday and the panel declared that upon the decision becoming final in 30 days, “The Regents shall release the report and other records, unless the California Supreme Court orders otherwise.”
Personnel Files Exemption
The professors invoked Government Code §7927.700, a portion of the CPRA, which declares that the act “does not require disclosure of personnel… files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Grimes pointed out that the exemptions set forth in that section are not mandatory and “are narrowly construed.”
In denying a preliminary injunction, Beckloff held that the professors failed to show a probability of prevailing on the merits. On appeal, they argued that the judge erred in so concluding.
Grimes wrote:
“[T]heir discussion merely describes their privacy interests in the records. They do not cite any authorities that suggest any likelihood of success on the merits, or any flaw in the trial court’s analysis.”
She added:
“Plaintiffs then say that the Hueston report’s allegations ‘remain unproven.’ That point, as the precedents plaintiffs fail to acknowledge tell us, is irrelevant.” A former UCLA employee, Martin Martz, requested a copy of the Hueston Report pursuant to CPRA) before the Times did. Beckloff denied a writ of mandate sought by them and they appealed.
The professors argued that their appeal in that case should be decided first. Grimes responded:
“Plaintiffs cite no authorities to support their argument, and we know of none. This appeal is ready for decision, and the other appeal is not. The Times is not a party to the other appeal. We see no reason to delay further a decision on a ruling that concerns the CPRA….”
Underlying Facts
Several of the filings in the trial court are unavailable for online viewing. However the Times, in a news story, describes the underlying facts:
“The complaint came in 2018 from a whistleblower about UCLA’s School of Dentistry. Three professors had allegedly solicited international postgraduate students for unauthorized fees on top of the already hefty tuition.
“The design of the alleged profit-sharing scheme was bold: Certain orthodontics residents were required to pay extra fees and the professors received incentive and bonus compensation based on the payments.
“Spots in UCLA’s prestigious, highly selective orthodontics program are at a premium, with only a handful earmarked for international students. Annual tuition for those students approaches six figures.
“After investigating the allegations, a law firm commissioned by UCLA issued a report that concluded the professors targeted Middle Eastern students believing their wealthy government sponsors ‘could — and would — pay for it.’ ”
The case is Doe v. Regents of the University of California (Los Angeles Times Communications LLC), B324717.
Lisa Von Eschen and Vishwanath Mohan of the Century City firm of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger joined with Scott E. Shapiro of the Sherman Oaks firm of Appell Shapiro in representing the professors. Acting for the regents were Raymond Cardozo, Corrie Buck and Kathryn M. Bayes of various offices of Reed Smith, along with John Gherini, UC’s principal counsel.
Attorneys on appeal for the Times were Kelly A. Aviles and Jeff Glasser of the Law Offices of Kelly A. Aviles in La Verne.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company