The Public Records Act provides for the inspection of public records maintained by state and local agencies. (See Gov. Code Sec. 6250 et seq.) The purpose of the Public Records Act is to fulfill the "fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state" to have access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business. (See Gov. Code Sec. 6250; Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. County of Orange (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 893, 901.)
As stated by the California Supreme Court in CfiS, Inc. v. S/oc/c:
Implicit in the democratic process is the notion that government should be accountable for its actions. In order to verify accountability, individuals must have access to government files. Such access permits checks against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process.
(CSS, Inc. V. Bloci< (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 651.)
To advance this purpose, the Public Records Act establishes a presumptive right of access to any record created or maintained by a public agency that relates in any way to the business of the public agency. (Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58 Cal.4th 300, 323.)
“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.” (Cal Const. Art. 1, § 3.) “A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access.” (Cal Const. Art. 1, Sec. 3.)
The California Public Records Act “declares that access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (Gov. Code Sec. 6250, et. seq.) “Exempt with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable.” (Gov. Code Sec. 6253, subd. (b).) “Any segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.” (Gov. Code Sec. 6253, subd. (a).)
Pursuant to the CPRA (Gov. Code § 6250, et seq.), individual citizens have a right to access government records. In enacting the CPRA, the California Legislature declared that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (Gov. Code § 6250; see also County of Los Angeles v, Superior Court (2012) 211 Cal.Appi4th 57, 63.) “The CPRA was modeled on the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ( 5 U.S.Cl § 552 et seq.) and was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to information in the possession of public agencies. (CBS, Inc. 1/. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 651 [230 CalRptr. 362, 725 P.2d 470].) The Legislature has declared that such “access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.” (Gov. Code, § 6250.)” (Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, 425-26.)
To facilitate the public's access to this information, the CPRA mandates, in part, that: “[E]ach state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available .” (Gov. Code § 6253(b)l)
In particular, Government Code section 6253(b) provides: (b) Except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable. Upon request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so.
Support for a claim of nondisclosure must be found, if at all, among the specific exemptions enumerated in the Act. (Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 893, 901.)
Under the Act, records may be exempted from disclosure in two ways. First, materials may be exempt from disclosure pursuant to one of the express categorical exemptions set forth in withhold records if it can demonstrate, on the facts of a particular case, that the public interest served by withholding the records clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure. (Gov. Code Sec. 6255.) The Act is broadly construed to further the people's right of access, and exemptions from disclosure must be construed narrowly. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 759, 765; Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 3(b).) The burden of establishing an exemption is on the public agency seeking to withhold the record. (Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469,476; Cal. Const, art. I, Sec. 3(b).)
Under the Public Records Act, there is a presumptive right of access to any public record. Upon request, public records must be disclosed unless disclosure is prohibited or there is a specific exemption authorizing the agency to withhold the record. The exemptions are construed narrowly, and the burden is on the public agency to show that a record should not be disclosed. (Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469, 476.) Thus, if the access logs are public records, as Petitioner claims, CDCR has a duty to disclose the records unless it proves that disclosure is prohibited or an exemption applies, which it has not done.
Real Parties suggest that an agency’s duties under the Public Records Act are not triggered unless the party specifically requests the records in writing under the Act. The court does not agree. The Act merely requires that non-exempt records be made available “upon request” for a copy of records that “reasonably describes an identifiable record or records . . . .” (Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 6253(b).) The Act does not require a written request for records. (L.A. Times v. Alameda Corridor Transp. Auth. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1392.) The demurrer to the access log cause of action is overrul
ed.Torrance Police Department, Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: November 24, 2020 19STCP04466 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate Petitioner Brian Sanders (“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of mandate directing Respondent Torrance Police Department (“Respondent” or “Department”) to disclose the names of the victims of a crime pursuant to a request made by Petitioner under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”).
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Writ Proceeding, and Petitioner’s Discovery On March 20, 2018, Petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of mandate and declaratory relief for violations of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). Respondent filed an answer to the petition on April 20, 2018.
Los Angeles County, CA
Because Petitioner possesses no special statutory vehicle to obtain the information it must rely on the California Public Records Act to obtain its needed information. Petitioner made a formal written request for parcel based water volume or usage data to Respondent on June 25, 2020. On July 20, 2020, Respondent stated that it would not produce any of the data in its possession. Petitioner alleges that it needs the information to complete the Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
Administrative
Writ
Ventura County, CA
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.
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
Petition Petitioner Rios commenced this proceeding on December 18, 2019, alleging causes of action for mandamus and declaratory relief pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. After the City published its annual budget on October 15, 2019, Rios emailed the City a CPRA request regarding Tafoya’s billing because he was concerned by the exorbitant attorney’s fees the City paying the City Attorney.
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Code §6250 [declaring that the Legislature, in enacting the California Public Records Act, is “mindful of the right of individuals to privacy in certain government records]; Gov. Code §6254(f) [exempting from public disclosure “[r]ecords of complaints to, or investigations conducted by…any…local police agency]; Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, 1064 [recognizing that the investigative exemption is based on “reasons of privacy, safety, and efficient governmental operation”.)
Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales
Los Angeles County, CA
Petition Petitioner Rios commenced this proceeding on December 18, 2019, alleging causes of action for mandamus and declaratory relief pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. After the City published its annual budget on October 15, 2019, Rios emailed the City a CPRA request regarding Tafoya’s billing because he was concerned by the exorbitant attorney’s fees the City paying the City Attorney.
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
City of Long Beach Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: November 17, 2020 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate: GRANTED in part, DENIED in part 19STCP03908 Petitioners Stephen Downing (“Downing”) and Beachcomber (collectively “Petitioners”) seek a writ of mandate directing Respondent City of Long Beach (“Respondent” or “City”) to produce records under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) regarding an investigation of findings made by Long Beach Police Department (“LBPD”) and/or City of Long Beach
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
Explanation: Pursuant to a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request, plaintiff seeks access (in-office review) to the following materials from the November 6, 2018 general election: a. The envelopes in which the mail-in ballots were submitted by voters; b. The envelopes in which the conditional ballots were submitted by voters; c. The envelopes in which the provisional ballots were submitted by voters; and d.
Other
Intellectual Property
Fresno County, CA
App. 4th 1496, 1501 (4th DCA, Div. 1 1998), 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, 143 Cal.App.3d 762, 771-772 (1983). The overall intent of the Act is "to safeguard the accountability of government to the public ...."
Other
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
Background In summary, the verified petition alleges the following: April 8, 2018 CPRA Request to North Figueroa On April 8, 2018, Petitioner sent a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request for the following records to North Figueroa’s Executive Director, Misty Iwatsu: “All emails between you and anyone at lacity.org or lapd.online … from January 2, 2014 through December 31, 2016…in their native formats.” (Pet. ¶ 10.)
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff seeks the following public records from the County under the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250, et seq.): 1) "[D]eath certificates... listing Covid-19 or complications from Covid-19 as the cause of death for individuals in San Diego County who resided in a nursing home or assisted living facility." [Petition, Exhibit A] 2) "[A]ll San Diego County death certificates from March 15 to present."
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
Petitioner Marlon Blacher (Blacher) contends that Respondent Alex Padilla, California's Secretary of State, (Padilla) failed to produce public records pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (See Gov't Code § 6250 et seq.) Padilla filed an answer to the petition on March 11, 2020 and now moves for judgment on the pleadings. Padilla argues that the motion should be granted because Blacher failed to allege that he paid the fees for the records sought.
Sacramento County, CA
Judge Mary Strobel Hearing: October 29, 2020 19STCP04094 Tentative Decision on Petition for Writ of Mandate Petitioner AIDS Healthcare Foundation (“Petitioner”) petitions for a writ of mandate directing Respondents City of Los Angeles and Office of Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti (“Respondents” or “City”) to disclose all public records responsive to a request for records made by Petitioner under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”).
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
In their opposition, Defendants make much of the fact that the County already produced documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ pre-litigation document demand under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Thus, Defendants argue, Plaintiffs’ discovery requests are duplicative. Parties in litigation are entitled to verified responses and production of documents. Whether documents were previously produced prior to litigation under the CPRA makes no difference and Defendants offer no authority to the contrary.
San Luis Obispo County, CA
The California Public Records Act ("CPRA") declares that "access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." Gov. Code 6250. In 2004, voters made this principle part of the state Constitution.
Administrative
Writ
San Diego County, CA
The dispute arises out of a series of written records requests pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). Plaintiff alleges that the City provided incomplete and evasive responses to the requests. The Complaint states two causes of action for: 1) writ of mandate for violation of Gov. Code section 6258; and 2) decalratory judgment. On March 4, 2020, the parties indicated that they settled the case. On September 9, 2020, Plaintiff brought a motion for attorneys’ fees.
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
In 2017, the City received from the cities of Chino Hills and Diamond Bar multiple requests under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) for records relating to the Lease Agreement. The City asked SGVWP to provide records as required under the Lease Agreement relating to work for which SGVWP had been reimbursed by the City. SGVWP did not respond. In January 2018, the City Council voted unanimously in a closed session to terminate Lockyer’s advisory contract.
Los Angeles County, CA
Legal Standard The California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) provides for the inspection of public records maintained by state and local agencies. (Gov’t Code § 6250.) “The CPRA embodies a strong policy in favor of disclosure of public records, and any refusal to disclose public information must be based on a specific exception to that policy.” (California State University v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 810, 831.)
Los Angeles County, CA
In addition, while plaintiff contends that police reports are public records and can be obtained by a California Public Records Act request, her contention is incorrect. Police reports are generally considered privileged, and there is a specific exception in the CPRA that bars disclosure of such reports in most cases. “The official information privilege (Ev.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Fresno County, CA
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.
Riverside County, CA
Doe argues that the requested records are discoverable under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) or via a Pitchess motion. California Public Records Act (“CPRA”): DENIED Doe argues that Toruno’s records are discoverable under the CPRA pursuant to Penal Code section 832.7.
Los Angeles County, CA
Petitioner alleges that the information concerning the incident is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Govt. Code §6250, et. seq.) He made a CPRA request on 6/12/19 to the District but, it refused to comply claiming there was an agreement with Ms. Andrade, and she objected to disclosure. Petitioner asserts that the District’s agreement with Ms. Andrade is unenforceable (Govt.
Riverside County, CA
., 20STCP00417 Tentative decision on: (1) motion to strike: granted in part; (2) petition for writ of mandate: denied Petitioner Ronald Austin (“Austin”) seeks a writ of mandate directing Respondent Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“Department”) to comply with Austin’s California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request to disclose the name of the victim of a drink spiking at a party in May 2019 or to justify withholding the information by demonstrating that it is exempt.
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
