What is the California Public Records Act?

Useful Rulings on California Public Records Act

Recent Rulings on California Public Records Act

BRIAN SANDERS VS TORRANCE POLICE DEPARTMENT

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”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC VS COUNTY OF LA

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.

  • Hearing

UPPER VENTURA RIVER VS CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BARNETT VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOHN RIOS VS CITY OF BALDWINPARK

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JEREMIAH CASAS VS THE HOPS LLC, ET AL.

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”.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JOHN RIOS VS CITY OF BALDWIN PARK

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

STEPHEN DOWNING, ET AL. VS CITY OF LONG BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

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

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PETITION OF BEALER

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT CALIFORNIA, INC. V. ORTH ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BEST VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE

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 ...."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ADRIAN RISKIN VS NORTH FIGUEROA ASSOCIATION , ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VOICE OF SAN DIEGO VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

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."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MARLON BLACHER VS. ALEX PADILLA DBA SECRETARY OF STATE

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.

  • Hearing

AIDS HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

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”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BARRY PICKELL ET AL. V. COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

VOICE OF SAN DIEGO VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS VS CITY OF GLENDALE, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CITY OF INDUSTRY VS BETTY T. YEE, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

LAMAAS EL VS CUSTODY ASSISTANT SOTO

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.)

  • Hearing

ROBITSCHEK V. MARTIN

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KINNEY VS CITY OF CORONA

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.

  • Hearing

JOHN DOE VS EL CAMINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

GOEBELS VS VAL VERDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

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.

  • Hearing

RONALD AUSTIN VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

., 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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 11     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.