What is the California Public Records Act?

Useful Resources for California Public Records Act

Recent Rulings on California Public Records Act

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

    Oct 20, 2020

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

    Oct 20, 2020

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

    Oct 20, 2020

  • 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

    Oct 19, 2020

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

    Oct 15, 2020

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

    Oct 15, 2020

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

    Oct 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LEE ROSSUM VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT

Further, defendant is encouraged to further consider whether any of the other privileges it asserts, including (but not limited to) the California Public Records Act, are applicable in this instance. The parties shall meet and confer further on these issues as well and shall file a joint statement of no more than 3 pages setting forth the requests that are properly at issue in this motion five days prior to the next hearing date.

  • Hearing

    Sep 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD V REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

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

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

JOHN RIOS VS CITY OF BALDWINPARK

Statement of the Case 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

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JOHN RIOS VS CITY OF BALDWIN PARK

Statement of the Case Petitioner Rios commenced this proceeding on January 10, 2020, 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. In comparing the City’s 2015 proposed budget with the 2019-2020 budget, a number of costs, particularly for the office of the City Council, increased dramatically.

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DANIELLE M GUARD VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF GAMBLING CONTROL

Background This is an action to compel Respondent Bureau of Gambling Control (Bureau) ^ to disclose gambling-related records under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Petitioner alleges that she submitted requests for, among other things, the following categories of records: (1) game ^The Bureau is a subdivision ofthe California Department of Justice (Department). (See4 CCR § 12002(e).) Although the caption on the petition might be read to suggest that the Department is a separate respondent.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

FRIENDS OF THE GREEN BRIDGE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

This matter arises out of a California Public Records Act (PRA) request by plaintiff 1“ Friends of the Green Bridge (sometimes “Friends”) , a not-for—profit, public benefit, 1 Because Friends has filed an action seeking a writ of mandate as well as declaratory relief, it should have identified itself as petitioner and plaintiff, and CalTrans as respondent and defendant.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

BARNETT VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

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).

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BARNETT VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

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).

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RONALD AUSTIN VS CAL STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

Procedural History On December 13, 2019, Petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) against Respondent. According to the petition, Petitioner emailed a public records request to the California State University Northridge (“CSUN”) on October 14, 2019, and CSUN denied the request on October 25, 2019. (Pet. ¶¶ 16-17.) Petitioner alleges that Respondent has a duty to produce the requested records.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SAMUEL A PERRONI VS MARK A FAJARDO ET AL

Petition Petitioner Perroni, acting pro per, commenced this proceeding on November 10, 2015, alleging a cause of action pursuant to the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). The verified Petition alleges in pertinent part as follows. a. The Coroner Request On March 30, 2015, Petitioner forwarded a request for public records in Coroner’s Case Number: 81-15 167 regarding Natalie Wood Wagner (“Natalie Wood”) to Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Medical-Examiner Coroner (“Coroner”).

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WAYNE INFANGER VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS

Procedural History On January 24, 2020, Petitioner filed his verified petition for writ of mandate to enforce the California Public Records Act. On February 27, 2020, Respondent filed its demurrer and meet and confer declaration. The court has received Petitioner’s opposition and Respondent’s reply. Analysis A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a pleading, and the grounds for a demurrer must appear on the face of the pleading or from judicially noticeable matters.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RONALD AUSTIN VS IRWINDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT

Irwindale Police Department, 20STCP00105 Tentative decision on petition for writ of mandate: denied Petitioner Ronald Austin (“Austin”) seeks a writ of mandate directing Respondents City of Irwindale (“City”) and the Irwindale Police Department (“Department”) (collectively, “City”)[1] to comply with Austin’s California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request to disclose the name of the victim of a car crash that occurred at the 16000 block of Arrow Highway on July 15, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Aug 27, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

VAUGHN V. HIBBS, ET AL.

Covia’s motion Covia moves to quash the deposition subpoena for production of business records to Palo Alto Police Department (“PAPD”) asserting that: the subpoena seeks records protected from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”); the subpoena is egregiously overbroad and not reasonably calculated to the discovery of admissible evidence; the subpoena invades third parties’ constitutional privacy rights; and, the subpoena seeks confidential information protected by HIPAA.

  • Hearing

    Aug 20, 2020

DAVID ABRAMS VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Petition 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

    Aug 20, 2020

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

“On or about June 11, 2019, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA) Petitioners requested that the City provide the disclosures and/or production of the following public writings (as defined by the CPRA): Under the authority of California Penal Code 832.7 (as amended … by Senate Bill 1421 ), request is made for all records relating to sustained findings made by LBPD and/or City of Long Beach officials for dishonesty (i.e.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LOS ANGELES TIMES COMMUNICATIONS LLC VS COUNTY OF LA

“On or about June 11, 2019, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA) Petitioners requested that the City provide the disclosures and/or production of the following public writings (as defined by the CPRA): Under the authority of California Penal Code 832.7 (as amended … by Senate Bill 1421 ), request is made for all records relating to sustained findings made by LBPD and/or City of Long Beach officials for dishonesty (i.e.

  • Hearing

    Aug 18, 2020

KRAMER VS. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

Background Petitioner, Gustave Kramer, filed this action in September 2018 alleging violations of the Brown Act and the California Public Records Act, both related to the decision by the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County at an open meeting on August 14, 2018, to censure Kramer for allegedly improper activities he engaged in while occupying his office as the Assessor of Contra Costa County.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

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

Defendant also argues that, even if the previous 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

    Aug 10, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  « first    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.