CalMatters Sues LAHSA Over Hidden Reports in Homeless Shelters

A string of sexual assaults in Los Angeles shelters. A brutal murder in a motel transformed into emergency pandemic housing. Rats, roaches, and garbage piling up in supposed safe havens.
These disturbing incidents are just the tip of the iceberg in the city’s sprawling network of homeless shelters. For months, the public has been left to wonder: What else is happening inside these shelters, meant to be safe refuges for those in need?

CalMatters, a nonprofit news organization, has taken legal action to find out. Last week, the organization filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) after its repeated attempts to access shelter incident reports were denied under California’s Public Records Act. These reports are supposed to track critical issues within shelters, yet the public remains in the dark due to LAHSA's claims of attorney-client privilege.

The Battle for Public Records

For over eight months, CalMatters has been requesting access to incident reports from LAHSA, which document serious occurrences in shelters, including deaths, disease outbreaks, abuse, and overdoses. These shelters, publicly funded and operated by contractors, are required to maintain such reports. However, LAHSA has consistently refused to release them, claiming they are protected under attorney-client privilege, a defense typically reserved for sensitive legal communications.

But this defense raises questions. The incident reports are not typically prepared by attorneys but by shelter contractors. CalMatters, represented by the law firm Covington & Burling, has repeatedly asked for evidence that these reports are indeed communicated to attorneys, but LAHSA has provided no such proof.

To justify withholding the documents, LAHSA has cited a 1995 court ruling, City of Hemet v. Superior Court, which allowed police records to be kept private to protect officers’ privacy. However, as the lawsuit points out, LAHSA does not employ police officers, making it unclear how this ruling applies.

“Therefore, it is unclear how the authority can claim that these records are exempt to protect the privacy of police officers,” the lawsuit states. Moreover, the Hemet case emphasizes that hiding broad categories of public documents because they could become relevant to future litigation is inconsistent with the Public Records Act.