Posted by Peter Carpenter, a resident of the Atherton: Lindenwood neighborhood, on Oct 20, 2010 at 5:49 am
The California League of Cities states:
"Threatened litigation against the local agency Closed sessions are authorized for legal counsel to inform the legislative body of specific facts and circumstances that suggest that the local agency has significant exposure to litigation. The Brown Act lists six separate categories of such facts and circumstances."
The Attorney General's Office states:
"Existing facts and circumstances which create a significant exposure to litigation consist only of the following:
• The agency believes that facts creating significant exposure to litigation are not known to potential plaintiffs. (§ 54956.9(b)(3)(A).
• Facts (e.g., an accident, disaster, incident, or transaction) creating significant exposure to litigation are known to potential plaintiffs. (§ 54956.9(b)(3)(B).)
• A claim or other written communication threatening litigation is
received by the agency. (§ 54956.9(b)(3)(C).)
• A person makes a statement in an open and public meeting threatening
litigation. (§ 54956.9(b)(3)(D).)
• A person makes a statement outside of an open and public meeting
threatening litigation, and an agency official having knowledge of the
threat makes a contemporaneous or other record of the statement prior
to the meeting. (§ 54956.9(b)(3)(E).)
Prior to conducting a closed session under the pending litigation exception, the body must state on the agenda or publicly announce the subdivision of section
54956.9 which authorizes the session. If litigation has already been initiated, the body must state the title of the litigation unless to do so would jeopardize service of process or settlement negotiations. (§ 54956.9(c).)
Lastly, it should be emphasized that the purpose of the pending litigation exception is to permit a body to meet with its attorney under certain defined circumstances. If the attorney is not present (either in person or by teleconference means), the closed session may not be conducted. It should also be emphasized that the purpose of the exception is to permit the body to receive legal advice and make litigation decisions only; it is not to be used as a subterfuge to reach nonlitigation oriented policy decisions. (71
Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 96, 104-105 (1988).)"
Sorry for the long answer but the details are important.
Pogo is correct that in the case of expected or pending litigation that the names of the other party are not required to be disclosed.
in the UK