The Legal case to release the tape from this law student who wrote me the following:
"The bottom line is this: It is irrelevant that the courts denied the LATimes requests to disclose what has been adjudicated should not be disclosed. What IS relevant is to show the utter HYPOCRISY of the LATimes to refuse to disclose information about a candidate for POTUS when they have argued time and time and time again for disclosure because of PUBLIC INTEREST re matters courts and/or legislatures have deemed confidential.
There has truly never been a more important election in our lifetimes. The LA Times has no LEGAL reason why they should not release the tape, and the lie that they are putting out there that they keep their word is preposterous when they have asked courts and legislatures to CHANGE THE LAW in the matter of the public interest re matters much lesser than this one.
I'm sure there's a LOT more...I am only a law student, not an expert, and I don't have time to research every single LA Times of LA Mirror case...maybe publishing quotes LA Times made requesting release of confidential info will either pressure them into releasing the tape or at the very least expose their hypocrisy to such a degree that the public will be more focused on what could be on that tape."
Dominick Phillip BROOKLIER, Samuel Orlando Sciortino, Louis Tom Dragna, Michael Rizzitello, Jack Locicero, Defendants,
The Times Mirror Company, Publisher of the Los Angeles Times, and Gene Blake, Non-Party Appellants.
The TIMES MIRROR COMPANY and Gene Blake, Petitioners,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent,
Dominick Phillip Brooklier, et al., Real Parties.
Decided Aug. 31, 1982.
A newspaper publisher and reporter sought review by appeal and by a petition for mandamus of four orders of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Terry J. Hatter, Jr., J., barring access by the media and the public to certain portions of proceedings under an indictment.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 5, California.
Pete WILSON, as Governor etc., Petitioner,
The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent.
LOS ANGELES TIMES, Real Party in Interest.
Dec. 19, 1996.
As Modified Jan. 21, 1997.
Review Denied March 26, 1997.
Newspaper petitioned for writ of mandate seeking disclosure of applications submitted to governor by applicants for appointment to county board of supervisors. The Superior Court, No. BS038131,Robert H. O'Brien, J., granted petition. Governor petitioned for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal, Armstrong, J., held that applications were exempt from disclosure under Public Records Act's “public interest” or “catchall” exemption.
 In a request made pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov.Code, § 6250 et seq.),FN1 the Los Angeles Times (“the Times”) sought disclosure of, among other documents, copies of applications submitted to Governor Pete Wilson by persons seeking appointment to the vacancy on the Orange County Board of Supervisors created by the retirement of Supervisor Gaddi Vasquez. When Governor Wilson (through his Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary) declined to grant the Times access to the documents, the Times filed a petition for writ of mandate in respondent court. In this proceeding, the Governor challenges respondent court's judgment granting the Times' petition. We hold the applications are exempt from disclosure under the Act's “public interest” or “catchall” exemption (§ 6255) because they are subject to the “deliberative process privilege” ( Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325, 283 Cal.Rptr. 893, 813 P.2d 240) and that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
The Times argues that applicants for a highly-visible public office should expect that their qualifications and background will be subjected to close public scrutiny. We do not disagree. There is a considerable difference, however, between an applicant's disclosing such information to the Governor for purposes of a possible political appointment, and having such information disseminated in the press.
 The Times also argues that the importance of public access to information regarding high government posts is manifest and that the appointment of an *1144 individual (one of only five) to the Board of Supervisors of a county emerging from bankruptcy is of utmost public interest. Again, we do not disagree. The question, however is whether the public interest in disclosure of these applications clearly outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure. In resolving this issue we take the pragmatic approach approved by the Supreme Court in Times Mirror: “The deliberative process privilege is grounded in the unromantic reality of politics; it rests on the understanding that if the public and the Governor were entitled to precisely the same information, neither would likely receive it. Politics is an ecumenical affair; it embraces persons and groups of every conceivable interest: public and private; popular and unpopular; Republican and Democratic and every partisan stripe in between; left, right and center. To disclose every private meeting or association of the Governor and expect the decisionmaking process to function effectively, is to deny human nature and contrary to common sense and experience. [Citation.]” ( Times Mirror, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1345, 283 Cal.Rptr. 893, 813 P..2d 240.) As the Legislature recognized when it enacted 6255, and the Supreme Court recognized when it decided Times Mirror, there are instances in which, despite the Act's clear mandate for disclosure, documents must be subjected to a balancing test to determine whether the public interest served by not making the document public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosing it. ( Times Mirror, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 1344, 283 Cal.Rptr. 893, 813 P..2d 240.) Having conducted the balancing test compelled by Times Mirror, we conclude the applications in question should not be made public.
Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent;
The People et al., Real Parties in Interest.
Review Denied Feb. 24, 2004.
114 Cal.App.4th 247, 7 Cal.Rptr.3d 524, 32 Media L. Rep. 1180, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,722, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,517