California Public Records Act

Ntc Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Mandate Under The California Public Records Act Set for hearing on Wednesday, October 27, 2010, line 10, PETITIONER SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE'S Petition For Writ Of Mandate Under The California Public Records Act. HEARING CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 9, 2010 ON THE COURT'S OWN MOTION. =(302/CWW)

Section VIII states, in part: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND POLICIES 8.1 California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250 et seq.

Notice Of Hearing On Verified Petition For Writ Of Mandate Directed To Respondents Ordering Compliance With California Public Records Act And San Francisco'S Sunshine Ordinance; Notice Of Related Cases SET FOR HEARING ON THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2007, LINE 11. PETITIONER KGO TELEVISION, INC.'

Ntc Of Hearing On Petition For Writ Of Mandate Under The California Public Records Act Set for hearing on 11/9/10, line 8, PETITIONER SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE'S Petition For Writ Of Mandate Under The California Public Records Act. DENIED. THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT ("CPRA") SERVES A VITAL PUBLIC PURPOSE, GROUNDED IN THE RECOGNITION THAT ACCESS TO INFORMATION CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OF THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS IS A FUNDAMENTAL AND NECESSARY RIGHT OF EVERY PERSON IN THIS STATE.

The operative pleading in this case is the Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of Mandate Under the California Public Records Act and Other Laws. The moving papers that were submitted by Plaintiff/Petitioner San Diegans for Open Government ("SDOG") is entitled "Opening Brief on the Merits."

Under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), any person may institute a proceeding for a writ of mandate to enforce the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record. (Gov’t Code, § 7923.000.)

MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (And Notice Of Motion), Injunctive, And Declaratory Relief For Violations Of The California Public Records Act; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities; Declaration Of Kelly Aviles; Declaration Of Edward J. Donahue Iii, Exhibits A-L The matter is on calendar for Tuesday, January 30, 2018, Line 1, PETITIONER SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY'S MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE (And Notice Of Motion), Injunctive, And Declaratory Relief For Violations Of The California Public Records Act.

The court orders Respondents to provide Petitioners with the documents which Petitioners requested in their California Public Records Act requests. Government Code section 6254(f) exempts disclosure of documents requested under the California Public Records Act if the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or if disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation. (Government Code section 6254(f).)

Petitioner Jackson filed a petition for writ of mandate under the California Public Records Act, Government Code § 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085. The petition asks the Court to order Respondent Modesto Police Department to release body worn camera footage and related audiovisual records arising from a completed traffic stop involving Petitioner Jackson.

Notice Of Motion And Motion For Attorneys Fees And Costs Pursuant To The California Public Records Act Set for hearing on Monday, December 18, 2017, Line 3, PETITIONER ANNA HERRMANN's Motion For Attorneys Fees And Costs Pursuant To The California Public Records Act Plaintiff Anna von Herrmann's motion for attorney's fees and costs is denied. Ms. von Herrmann is not the prevailing party in this CRPA case.

Notice Of Petition For Writ Of Mandate Under California Public Records Act; Appendix Of Federal Statute And California Regulation In Support Of Petition For Writ Of Mandate Under Calif. Public Records OFF CALENDAR PER DISMISSAL.(302/REQ)

PETITION FOR ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE Counsel are instructed to appear and advise the court as to their meet and confer effort and the status of the response to Petitioner’s request under the California Public Records Act

Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Thursday, May 2, 2024 line 2, PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE DIRECTED TO THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA ORDERING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT *THE COURT'S FULL AND COMPLETE TENTATIVE RULING HAS BEEN EMAILED TO COUNSEL* A hearing is required on petitioner's petition for writ of mandate per the California Public Records Act ("CPRA").

Kramer (Petitioner) petitions for a writ of mandate directing Respondent Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (Respondent) to produce requested documents under the California Public Records Act. (Pet. 1.) Procedural History On January 4, 2022, Petitioner, in pro per, filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

The Court finds that Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to state its cause of action under the California Public Records Act. (California Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41, Government Code §7921.000)   Defendant’s Demurrer is accordingly overruled.   For the avoidance of doubt, this ruling relates solely to the instant demurrer and does not address the merits of whether the disputed documents are subject to disclosure or not.    

Background On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Nicholas Jackson filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code sections 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 (the “Petition”).

Background On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Nicholas Jackson filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code sections 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 (the “Petition”).

Background On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Nicholas Jackson filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code sections 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 (the “Petition”).

Background On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Nicholas Jackson filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code sections 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 (the “Petition”).

Matter on calendar for Tuesday, October 27, 2026, Line 3, PETITIONER ASEEM GUPTA's Hearing On Verified Petition For Writ Of Mandate And For Declaratory And Injunctive Reliefe Pursuant To The California Public Records Act. (Complete tentative ruling emailed to the parties). Petitioner Aseem Gupta's petition for writ of mandate and for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the California Public Records Act ("CPRA") is denied.

THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM: FILARSKY V SUPERIOR COURT (2002) 28 CAL. 4TH 419, 433. PLAINTIFF ALSO HAS FAILED TO FILE A TORT CLAIM. OVERRULED AS TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION. THE PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AUTHORNIZES INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ACT. =(302/PJM/AY)

Given this evidence, petitioner has not established an exception under the California Public Records Act. Thus, the petition must be denied. Respondent is directed to serve notice on all parties within two court days of this ruling.

The Third Cause of Action for Violation of California Public Records Act Failure to Allow Inspection of Records and Failure to Produce Records Vesting Building Code Enforcement Authority and Identifying the Individual Authorized as the City’s Building Official is sufficiently plead [see Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate at ¶¶87-94]. The Demurrer to the Third Cause of Action is overruled.

Petitioner THC Orange County, Inc.’s petition for writ of mandate directing the California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the Office of the Labor Commissioner to produce documents pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Petition granted as modified. The writ is denied as to any requested documents generated after petitioner filed it notice of appeal with regard to the subject Wage Citation.

18-4763 Jones Writ- CPRA 7/11/2018 Petitioner Calvin Jones seeks a Writ of Mandate challenging the refusal of Stockton Police Department, City of Stockton to allow inspection of public records per California Public Records Act. (Government Code § 6250 et seq.) Petitioner seeks to release public records of documents, recordings, and physical evidence relating to a homicide investigation in 1973 that was the basis for petitioner’s conviction in 1983.

Code §§ 830840.6); and (10)Violations of the California Public Records Act Request, Gov.

After full consideration of the evidence, and the written submissions by the parties, and considering the lack of opposition to the instant motion, the Court finds that no triable issues of material fact exist as to Defendant’s compliance with Plaintiff’s California Public Records Act requests. (Defendant’s UMF’s Nos.12-13,14-20, 21-29, and 30-42). (Code of Civ.

The underlying right and legal theory plaintiff seeks to enforce is his right as a member of the public to access documents pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.). The petition appears as one cause of action. City nevertheless demurs to plaintiff’s claim for damages on the grounds that the plaintiff has not complied with the California Tort Claims Act. At most, plaintiff seeks damages as a remedy for the alleged violation of the California Public Records Act.

"When a party seeks pretrial discovery in a proceeding to enforce the California Public Records Act 'the trial court must determine whether the discovery sought is necessary to resolve whether the agency has a duty to disclose, and additionally consider whether the request is justified given the need for an expeditious resolution.'" (County of San Benito v. Superior Court (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 243, 249.)

The District Attorney has fulfilled its obligation under the California Public Records Act. The petition is denied accordingly. Petitioner’s request to continue the matter to allow time for the Santa Maria Police Department to respond to his subpoena duces tecum is denied. Petitioner may pursue any necessary legal action against the Santa Maria Police Department in a separate action, if appropriate. Appearances are required. Petitioner may appear by CourtCall.

The court has determined that no additional documents are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. As found in the August 31, 2021 minute order, the files are personnel or similar files within the meaning of Govt Code section 6254(c), disclosure of which would constitute an invasion of privacy. The complaints at issue in the files are not substantial and well-founded within the meaning of relevant case law discussed in the August 31, 2021 minute order.

REASONS Grant Petitioner Jane Rozanski's request for a preliminary injunction prohibiting disclosure of the subject voicemails to the Camarillo Acorn pending a hearing/trial on Petitioner's request for a writ of mandate, on the grounds that (i) the balance of respective interim harms strongly favors Petitioner; and (ii) Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on her claim that the subject voicemails do not constitute "public records" such as a subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act

Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Wednesday, July 31, 2024, Line 9, PLAINTIFF AMERICAN ACCOUNTABILITY FOUNDATION'w Petition For Writ Of Mandate And Declaratory Relief Under The California Public Records Act. Hearing required re absence of opposition. Also, parties are reminded of Local Rule 2.7(B) (courtesy copies). For the 9:30 a.m. Law & Motion calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom.

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT – Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Relief and Writ of Mandate under the California Public Records Act (Gov Code 6258) – APPEARANCE BY COURT CALL REQUIRED.

Code §§ 830840.6); and (10)Violations of the California Public Records Act Request, Gov.

Jackson (Petitioner) filed a petition for writ of mandate under the California Public Records Act (the CPRA) against the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office (the County or Respondent). Respondent filed an answer asserting a series of defenses, and Petitioner moves to strike the following affirmative defenses: Failure to State a Claim (Answer ¶ 29.) Laches (Answer ¶ 39.) Equitable Estoppel (Answer ¶ 45.)

19CV01033 O’NEILL v DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AGAINST CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE The motion is denied.. The motion is procedurally defective. Govt.

19CV01033 O’NEILL v DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AGAINST CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE The motion is denied.. The motion is procedurally defective. Govt.

19CV01033 O’NEILL v DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AGAINST CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE The motion is denied.. The motion is procedurally defective. Govt.

19CV01033 O’NEILL v DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AGAINST CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE The motion is denied.. The motion is procedurally defective. Govt.

19CV01033 O’NEILL v DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT AGAINST CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE The motion is denied.. The motion is procedurally defective. Govt.

California Public Records Act The California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code §§6250 et seq.) was adopted “for the explicit purpose of ‘increasing freedom of information’ by giving the public ‘access to information in possession of public agencies.’” (CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 646, 651.) The CPRA was passed “to ensure public access to vital information about the government’s conduct of its business.” (Id. at 656.)

Penal Code § 832.7(b) provides that peace officer personnel records shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act in limited circumstances, including a record relating to the report, investigation, or findings of an incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer.

Hearing required unless the parties have resolved all issues relating to the third cause of action for violation of the California Public Records Act, including the issues of whether petitioner SF Urban Forest Coalition has standing and whether petitioner has received all documents it is entitled to receive per the CPRA.

Defendant California Peace Officers’ Association’s demurrer to first amended verified petition for writ of mandate ordering compliance with the California Public Records Act is OVERRULED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10.) The Court finds that defendant is an “indispensable party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 389, subd. (a).)

He appears to claim that the Defendant, an agency or component of the California Department of Justice (hereafter (DOJ) has declined to provide to him DNA information relating to his case and that he is entitled to that information under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

DEMURRER TO 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT SET FOR HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2017, LINE 9 DEFENDANT STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, as to the third cause of action for violation of the California Public Records Act in plaintiff Jonathan Corbett's first amended Complaint, is treated as a motion to strike because the third cause of action alleges two distinct requests for documents.

There is a triable issue of fact as to whether the City violated the California Public Records Act (CPRA) by withholding public information and by failing to respond to CPRA requests.

The court finds that Singer prevailed in litigation filed pursuant to the California Public Records Act, thereby requiring the award of court costs to Singer. (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties). For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.)

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO COMPEL — DISCOVERY RESPONSES [PLTF] FRIENDS OF THE GREEN BRIDGE RULING In this action under the California Public Records Act (CPRA)(Gov.

On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Jackson filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code § 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 (the “Petition”). The Petition asks the Court to order Respondents City of Modesto (“City”) and the Modesto Police Department (the “Police Department”) to release body worn camera footage and related audiovisual records arising from a completed traffic stop involving Petitioner Jackson.

On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Jackson filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code § 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 (the “Petition”). The Petition asks the Court to order Respondents City of Modesto (“City”) and the Modesto Police Department (the “Police Department”) to release body worn camera footage and related audiovisual records arising from a completed traffic stop involving Petitioner Jackson.

On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Jackson filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code § 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 (the “Petition”). The Petition asks the Court to order Respondents City of Modesto (“City”) and the Modesto Police Department (the “Police Department”) to release body worn camera footage and related audiovisual records arising from a completed traffic stop involving Petitioner Jackson.

On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Jackson filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code § 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 (the “Petition”). The Petition asks the Court to order Respondents City of Modesto (“City”) and the Modesto Police Department (the “Police Department”) to release body worn camera footage and related audiovisual records arising from a completed traffic stop involving Petitioner Jackson.

Before the Court is petitioner Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’s request for further discovery after the Court vacated its September 13, 2023, rulings on petitioner’s motions to compel further responses [to petitioner’s special interrogatories, set one, and request for production of documents, set one], and reopened discovery “as is necessary to resolve whether the agency has a duty to disclose” the documents requested by petitioner in its California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request.

CITY OF WHITTIER Case Number: 20STCP03942 Hearing Date: September 15, 2021 [Tentative] ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE Petitioner, Ivie McNeill Wyatt Purcell & Diggs, APLC, seeks a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Government Code sections 6250 et seq .) compelling Respondent, City of Whittier, to produce documents under the CPRA. Petitioner failed to file an opening brief.

Discussion A peace officer's personnel records must be made available for public inspection under the California Public Records Act if it falls within one of the four exceptions; the exceptions are listed in Penal Code section 832.7(b)(1).

The record shows that Respondents have not met their burden that the withheld documents are exempt under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinances. (See Gov. Code ?6255; SF Admin. Code ?67.21(g).)) Under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance, public records regarding advice on compliance with, analysis of, and opinion concerning liability under, or any communication other wise concerning the CPRA or the Sunshine Ordinance are subject to disclosure. (San Francisco Admin.

The motion is GRANTED WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND as to cause of action five for violation of the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). (The Court's complete tentative ruling has been emailed to the parties). For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.)

While the information provided is background explaining petitioner's motivation for the records, the issue presented here is requests made under the California Public Records Act. The Court also does not find that descriptions of petitioner as a "convicted felon" significant to the analysis, which turns on an interpretation and application of the California Public Records Act. Specifically, petitioner submitted two identical requests to the District Attorney's Office and the Sheriff on October 28, 2016.

Petitioners Gary Campbell and Collene Campbell's Petition for Writ of Mandate Pursuant to the California Public Records Act is granted. There is no dispute that the record sought, namely the audio recording of the parole hearing, is a public record for the purposes of the Public Records Act ("PRA"). Respondent's argument against disclosure is based upon Govt.

On the merits, the relief that Petitioner seeks an order compelling Respondent to comply with its obligations under the California Public Records Act is available through mandamus. Both parties agree that this action is a petition for a writ of mandate. (Mem., at p. 3; Opp. at p. 1.) There has been no undue delay by Respondent. Respondent sought a stipulation from Petitioner in June 2025, but Petitioner did not agree. (Kook Decl., ¶¶ 4-9.)

Plaintiffs’ Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint alleges three causes of action concerning Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with Plaintiffs’ California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request.

Petitioner Athecia Sanchez's motion for a writ of mandate to enforce the California Public Records Act ("CPRA") is granted. No later than May 8, 2026 respondent San Francisco Police Department must produce to petitioner all responsive documents sought by petitioner that it has not previously produced without any redactions except those documents claimed to be privileged by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.

Plaintiff seeks a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant from disclosing any of Plaintiffs personnel records in response to a California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Government Code section 6250 et seq. ) made by the Long Beach Post (LBP). Respondent did not file an opposition. Despite Petitioner having filed a Notice of Lodging Proof of Service, apparently as to Respondent and the LBP, Petitioner failed to file the proofs of service.

California Public Records Act “The California Public Records Act [CPRA], Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq., provides for the inspection of public records maintained by state and local agencies.” (BRV, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 742, 750.)

In this mandate action under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), petitioner seeks an order of this court compelling the City to provide records it withheld following a May 2018 demand therefor. The records in question relate to petitioner's February 2017 arrest by SDPD on suspicion of violating Penal Code section 273.5 - corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant.

Plaintiff brings a reverse California Public Records Act [PRA] action as a person whose rights would be infringed by disclosure of documents. (See, Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1265-1270) Plaintiff is a party to an Operating Sublease with the City of San Diego [City] to operate the Pechanga Arena San Diego, otherwise known as the San Diego Sports Arena.

Matter on calendar for Tuesday, August 12, 2025, Line 2, 2- PETITIONER PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND's Motion For An Order Of Prompt Production Under The California Public Records Act. Disclosure: Judge Van Aken discloses that her spouse is employed as a tenured professor at a UC campus. He has no connection to the events of this case other than his employment.

Respondent argues that the petition is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for relief, and it does not identify that Respondent has a ministerial duty to produce the records Petitioner is seeking to have produced, and the records Petitioner requested are not subject to the California Public Records Act. Petitioner has not filed a response or opposition to the motion of judgment on the pleadings. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal.

Respondent argues that the petition is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for relief, and it does not identify that Respondent has a ministerial duty to produce the records Petitioner is seeking to have produced, and the records Petitioner requested are not subject to the California Public Records Act. Petitioner has not filed a response or opposition to the motion of judgment on the pleadings. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal.

Respondent argues that the petition is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for relief, and it does not identify that Respondent has a ministerial duty to produce the records Petitioner is seeking to have produced, and the records Petitioner requested are not subject to the California Public Records Act. Petitioner has not filed a response or opposition to the motion of judgment on the pleadings. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal.

Respondent argues that the petition is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for relief, and it does not identify that Respondent has a ministerial duty to produce the records Petitioner is seeking to have produced, and the records Petitioner requested are not subject to the California Public Records Act. Petitioner has not filed a response or opposition to the motion of judgment on the pleadings. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal.

Respondent argues that the petition is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for relief, and it does not identify that Respondent has a ministerial duty to produce the records Petitioner is seeking to have produced, and the records Petitioner requested are not subject to the California Public Records Act. Petitioner has not filed a response or opposition to the motion of judgment on the pleadings. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal.

Respondent argues that the petition is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for relief, and it does not identify that Respondent has a ministerial duty to produce the records Petitioner is seeking to have produced, and the records Petitioner requested are not subject to the California Public Records Act. Petitioner has not filed a response or opposition to the motion of judgment on the pleadings. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal.

Respondent argues that the petition is uncertain and fails to state sufficient facts to support a claim for relief, and it does not identify that Respondent has a ministerial duty to produce the records Petitioner is seeking to have produced, and the records Petitioner requested are not subject to the California Public Records Act. Petitioner has not filed a response or opposition to the motion of judgment on the pleadings. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal.

Code §§ 830840.6); and (10)Violations of the California Public Records Act Request, Gov.

Discussion The records requests were made pursuant to the California Public Records Act which was previously embodied in Government Code §6250, et seq. Effective January 1, 2023, the CPRA was reorganized and recodified to make it more user friendly. See, CPRA Recodification Act of 2021. CPRA can now be found at Government Code §7920.000, et seq. All the changes are non-substantive.

Code §§ 830840.6); and (10)Violations of the California Public Records Act Request, Gov.

Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) attorney fee provision, there is no requirement that the trial court make an award of attorney fees in an amount that is commensurate with or in proportion to the degree of success in the CPRA litigation. Gov. Code, § 6259(d). Even where the petitioner is not entirely successful in obtaining all documents requested, it make seek the entirety of the attorney fees spent in the subject litigation.

A-B.) 7.0 hours amounting to $3,388 in fees relating to petitioner’s California Public Records Act requests. (See Rutan Decl. at Exh. A, pp. 24-31.) $3,360 in fees for work done investigating City’s rideshare program with Lyft, including tasks such as interviewing homeless persons. $1,740 for 2.9 hours of work spent on “[c]ommunications regarding the hiring and use of a lobbyist in connection with the HCD process.” (Rutan Decl. at Exh.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Case No. 23STCP00869 [Tentative] Order on Motion to Compel On August 1, 2025, the court (Leiter, J.) granted in part and denied in part Petitioners petition for a writ of mandate under the California Public Records Act. Judge Leiter wrote a 34-page, single-spaced order that addressed the issues in detail. Specifically, Judge Leiter ordered certain documents to be produced, which included emails (the emails).

The writs address the production of documents under California Public Records Act and are appropriate for a hearing rather than a trial. Waldo argues that trial is appropriate because either his or the City’s answer to Waldo’s and/or Heider’s petition raises questions of fact.

Conclusion The demurrer is OVERRULED. 1- Petitioner cites the federal Freedom of Information Act, but presumably he meant the California Public Records Act. (Pet. p. 2.) 2- Respondent also cited the Departmental Operations Manual, section 13040.14 of Chapter 1 of Article 15. Respondent has not requested judicial notice of or supplied the court with a copy of the Departmental Operations Manual.

Indeed, Plaintiff simply states that he seeks relief “pursuant to the California Public Records Act” without providing any further explanation. (Request for Discovery Mot., p. 1.) In addition, the relief Plaintiff seeks here must be made by verified petition, which has not been done here. (Gov’t Code § 6259, subd. (a).) Motion for Appointment of Counsel A.

Based on the Complaint, a writ of mandate compelling Defendant to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) requires a finding that Defendant is subject to the CPRA. Thus, there is overlap between the first (Writ of Mandate) and second (Declaratory Relief) causes of action. The Declaratory Relief cause of action, however, alleges an actual controversy regarding whether Defendant is subject to the CPRA. The Prayer for Relief requests a “. . . declaration that ACL is subject to the CPRA . . . .”

Discovery in an action under the California Public Records Act is "circumscribed by its relevance to the 'narrow issue: whether a public agency has an obligation to disclose the records that the petitioner has requested'" (County of San Benito, 96 Cal.App.5th at 254.) Second, plaintiff failed to file a separate statement in compliance with CRC 3.1345(a)(5) [separate statement required to compel further production of documents].

Discovery in an action under the California Public Records Act is "circumscribed by its relevance to the 'narrow issue: whether a public agency has an obligation to disclose the records that the petitioner has requested'" (County of San Benito, 96 Cal.App.5th at 254.) Second, plaintiff failed to file a separate statement in compliance with CRC 3.1345(a)(2) [separate statement required to compel further responses to interrogatories].

Code §§ 830840.6); and (10)Violations of the California Public Records Act Request, Gov.

(Complaint ‘ll15~) Plaintiff‘s complaint was filed on November 27, 2018 alleging two causes of action: 1) Writ of Mandate— Violation of the California Public Records Act and the California Constitution; and 2) Declaratory Relief- Violation of the Public Records Act and the California Constitution.

The recoverable hours claimed by SFUFC far exceeds what is reasonable for a fairly pedestrian California Public Records Act case, and taking into account that SFUFC did not prevail on the only arguably difficult and novel issue (the applicability of the Sunshine Ordinance) that was litigated. While the court does not doubt that the three timekeepers spent all the time they say they spent on this case, spending the time does not make the spent time recoverable.

Both cases allege that the City of Tulare has failed to comply with the California Public Records Act (Government Code §6250 et seq.) Both cases involve common questions of law and fact (although the focus of the records request are related to different matters). Additionally, it is anticipated that consolidation of these cases will eliminate unnecessary expense to the parties and promote judicial economy.

Code § 6254 does not apply, as under the California Public Records Act the exemptions from public disclosure requirements apply only to proceedings under the Act, and may not be used by the public entity to evade discovery in a judicial proceeding. ( See Gov. Code § 6260; Shepherd v Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 107, 123-124) The Diaz case is inapplicable, as the requests at issue relate directly to Martinez’s conduct, and the witnesses to that conduct, and not to the District’s actions.

Code §§ 830840.6); and (10)Violations of the California Public Records Act Request, Gov. Code § 6250 et al . Plaintiff named only two of the previously named defendants in the initial complaint, COLA and Defendant Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LAFCD and collectively Defendants). On December 12, 2019, the Court sustained Defendants Demurrer to Plaintiffs FAC, with leave to amend.

( Ibid. ) Respondent contends that discovery in California Public Records Act (CPRA) cases is not available because it is continuing to cooperate with petitioners public records request. (Hamor Decl. ¶ 19; Hamor Reply Decl. ¶ 4; Martinez Decl. ¶ 7; Martinez Reply Decl. ¶ 8.) Respondent maintains that, under City of Los Angeles v.

Over the next ten months, respondent notified petitioner that it was gathering documents and needed time to review them for privilege or exemptions under the California Public Records Act and complete production. ( Id. ¶¶ 7, 9.) However, respondent did not provide additional documents until August 23, 2023, three weeks before the deadline for petitioner to file an opening brief. ( Id. ¶ 10.)

The provisions cited by Plaintiff are applicable for requests made under the California Public Records Act and not for discovery. Plaintiff’s contention that the records sought are not confidential is without merit. Whether Plaintiff has shown good cause for the discovery or disclosure sought Plaintiff argues that she has shown good cause for the discovery sought.

(g)); writ of mandate – enforcement of the California Public Records Act (Code of Civil Proc. §1085); and declaratory relief for enforcement of the California Public Records Act.