What is the California Public Records Act?

Useful Rulings on California Public Records Act

Recent Rulings on California Public Records Act

RONALD GREEN VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS ET AL

Subdivision (f) reserves the retention of privileged communications not subject to California Public Records Act. Subdivision (g) states requirements of local agencies’ legislative bodies’ prior to holding a closed session. Subdivision (h) defines when a local agency is a “party” or has “significant exposure to litigation.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

RONALD GREEN VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS ET AL

Subdivision (f) reserves the retention of privileged communications not subject to California Public Records Act. Subdivision (g) states requirements of local agencies’ legislative bodies’ prior to holding a closed session. Subdivision (h) defines when a local agency is a “party” or has “significant exposure to litigation.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

JAMES R MELVILLE ET AL VS OLYMPUS AMERICA INC ET AL

(g) Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code). . . . (k) To any person pursuant to a subpoena, court order, or other compulsory legal process if, before the disclosure, the agency reasonably attempts to notify the individual to whom the record pertains, and if the notification is not prohibited by law. . . . (Civ. Code, § 1798.24 [bold emphasis and underlining added].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL. VS NEW FLYER OF AMERICA, INC.

Even if these allegations were not sufficiently similar, the information Plaintiff received under its California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request qualifies as a “report” disclosing the alleged transactions. (Gov’t Code § 12652(d)(3)(A)(ii).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

A G JOHNSON VS CITY OF LYNWOOD ET AL

In this letter, Petitioner’s counsel demanded that City produce certain documents from the administrative record for this case pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). (Gridley Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. 4.) In response to Petitioner’s November 6, 2018 letter, City searched for and produced digital records requested by Petitioner. (Gridley Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.) The digital production occurred on or about February 5, 2019. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6, Exh. 8, 13.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COX VS PALO VERDE UNIFIED HEARING RE: MOTION TO/FOR ORDER COMPELLING ANSWERS DEPOSITION QUESTIONS BY BRANDY COX, SHARON STEWART, MIKE CAHILL, JENNIFER MORGAN, DAVID CHAMBERLAIN, VICKI CHAMBERLAIN, GEORGE DAGNINO

The "deliberative process" privilege in California is based upon section 6255 of the California Public Records Act ("PRA"), which provides that a state "agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record."

  • Hearing

    Jun 11, 2020

DOE VS. ACALANES UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT

Requesters, Bay Area News Group (BANG) and Jack Paulus (a concerned parent), filed requests with the District under the California Public Records Act, requesting documents relating to the District’s investigation of Doe, as well as Doe’s job application and communications with parents about the Doe investigation. The District notified Doe that it had identified certain documents as responsive to the requests and intended to produce them to the requesters.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

FRIENDS OF THE GREEN BRIDGE VS, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 05, 2020

BASMAJIAN, S VS. DALE, E

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.

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2020

BASMAJIAN, S VS. DALE, E

STANISLAUS COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT – Petitioners’ Petition for Declaratory Relief and Writ of Mandate under the California Public Records Act (GOV Code 6258) – CONTINUED, on the Court’s own motion, to May 22, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 22. On March 18, 2020, Tani G.

  • Hearing

    Apr 22, 2020

AG ARCADIA, LLC VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH

The operative pleading is the Second Amended Petition (“SAP”) filed on October 31, 2019, which alleges causes of action for failure to comply with the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) and declaratory relief, with the remedies of preliminary and permanent injunction.[1] The verified SAP alleges in pertinent part as follows. The 2017-18 Omnibus Health Budget Trailer Bill, Senate Bill 97 ("SB 97"), was enacted on July 10, 2017.

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SOUTHWEST COLLEGE SUN VS SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

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

    Mar 12, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LAMAAS EL VS CUSTODY ASSISTANT SOTO

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DUNES DEVELOPMENT, LLC VS CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

Dunes replies that it discovered the facts after the conclusion of the administrative proceedings through a separate California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) lawsuit. Pet. Reply RJN, Exs. A-B. Reply at 9. Dunes’ explanation is an adequate explanation for the failure to exhaust. However, again Dunes waited until its reply to make a detailed argument on the fair hearing issue.

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CALIFORNIA STATE PARK PEACE OFFICER MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

The letter stated the information request was made under both EEBR and the California Public Records Act. 4 (Pet., Ex. A.) After this initial demand letter to DPR, most correspondence on behalf of the State was sent by or to CalHR, which is the entity that has been designated to meet and confer with employee organizations on behalf of the State. On February 4, CalHR sent CSPPOMA a copy of a four-page proposal to create the two new District Superintendent classifications.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

STACIE HERNANDEZ VS CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON -- LOS ANGELES COUNTY, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY, ET AL.

As an initial matter, Government Code section 6254 is part of the California Public Records Act. Section 6254, subdivision (f) provides that records of investigations conducted by local police agencies are not open to inspection under the California Public Records Act. “The statute does not create a litigation privilege.” (Jackson v. County of Sacramento (1997 E.D. Cal.) 175 F.R.D. 653, 654-655.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALEXANDRA A. HIGGINS VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

This code section only prevents disclosure under the California Public Records Act. (See Gov. Code, §§ 6250-6268, (“Public Records Act”).) Further, the Public Records Act expressly states that its provisions “shall not be deemed in any manner to affect ... the rights of litigants ... under the laws of discovery of this state.” (Gov. Code, § 6260.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RICHMOND POLICE VS. CITY OF RICHMOND

Amended Penal Code § 832.7 provides access to certain records of police misconduct through a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request without having to file a Pitchess motion. On January 24, 2019, the Richmond Police Officers Association (RPOA) filed its Petition initiating this action.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

ANTHONY PIER VS. CALIFORNIA VICTIM COMPENSATION BOARD

Petitioner Anthony Pier (Pier) commenced this action to compel disclosure of public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Pier’s petition is unverified and therefore not in conformity with legal requirements. (See Cal. Gov’t Code § 6259(a); 1 CCP § 1086; see also Krueger v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 934, 939 [due to improper verification, writ petitioner did not carry his pleading burden, and petition was denied on that ground].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

ANTHONY PIER VS. CALIFORNIA VICTIM COMPENSATION BOARD

Petitioner Anthony Pier (Pier) commenced this action to compel disclosure of public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Pier's petition is unverified and therefore not in conformity with legal requirements. (See Cal. Gov't Code § 6259{a);^ CCP § 1086; see also Krueger v. Superior Court (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 934, 939 [due to improper verification, writ petitioner did not carry his pleading burden, and petition was denied on that ground].)

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2020

DODD V. AFFORDABLE COMMUNITY LIVING CORPORATION 10:00 A.M.

The court directs Respondent (Affordable Community Living Corporation (ACLC)) to produce Petitioner’s requested public records in compliance with the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice: The court GRANTS Petitioner’s Request for Judicial Notice, filed on 9-18-19 (ROA Nos. 87 and 88) pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h), as to Exhibits 1-10.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2020

ESTATE OF ZELALEM ESHETU EWNETU ET AL VS COUNTY OF LA ET AL

The first four categories of documents are documents which are authorized pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7, subdivision (b) to be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. Although not specified, Plaintiffs are presumably seeking the above categories of documents as they relate to the individual deputy defendants. Plaintiffs contend that these documents are discoverable pursuant to Evidence Code sections 1043 and 1046.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BEST VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE

Superior Court (Copley Press) (4th DCA, Div. 1 1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1501, citing The California Public Records Act: The Public's Right of Access to Governmental Information, 7 Pacific L.J. 105, 110-111 (1976), and San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 762, 771-772. The overall intent of the Act is "to safeguard the accountability of government to the public ...."

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DAVID ABRAMS VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Statement of the Case Petitioner/Plaintiff Abrams, acting pro se,[1] filed this lawsuit on August 22, 2019, asserting a cause of action for violation of the California Constitution and the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) and seeking the remedies of declaratory and injunctive relief. The Petition/Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2020

TIDWELL SR. VS DEPT OF JUSTICE

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).

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.