What is the California Public Records Act?

Useful Resources for California Public Records Act

Recent Rulings on California Public Records Act

126-150 of 260 results

CARLSBAD POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS CITY OF CARLSBAD

California law has evolved to increase access to the public not only with regard to police conduct, but to private settlements through strict requirements for sealing documents, as well as increased access through the California Public Records Act. The legislature has repeatedly promoted transparency in government. Petitioners contend allowing the public access to specific records prior to 2019 impair petitioners' rights, and therefore retroactivity is prohibited.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CARLSBAD POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS CITY OF CARLSBAD

California law has evolved to increase access to the public not only with regard to police conduct, but to private settlements through strict requirements for sealing documents, as well as increased access through the California Public Records Act. The legislature has repeatedly promoted transparency in government. Petitioners contend allowing the public access to specific records prior to 2019 impair petitioners' rights, and therefore retroactivity is prohibited.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CARLSBAD POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS CITY OF CARLSBAD

California law has evolved to increase access to the public not only with regard to police conduct, but to private settlements through strict requirements for sealing documents, as well as increased access through the California Public Records Act. The legislature has repeatedly promoted transparency in government. Petitioners contend allowing the public access to specific records prior to 2019 impair petitioners' rights, and therefore retroactivity is prohibited.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION V. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

Analysis: Effective January 1, 2019, Penal Code § 823.7 provides that certain peace officer and custodial officer records maintained by a state or local agency shall not be confidential and shall be made available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act (CPRA).

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2019

KATERINA DAVIDOVICH VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Accordingly, on March 16, 2018, Davidovich made a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request to DOJ for information related to individuals who are registered for violations of section 286. Davidovich requested only that information available to the public on the California sex offender website. On March 26, 2018, DOJ refused to produce or provide access to the requested public records.

  • Hearing

    Feb 26, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DAPHNE H ADAMS VS. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Petition seeks a writ of mandate and related declaratory and injunctive relief (collectively, Petition) directing the District to comply with and disclose documents that Petitioner requested pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, §§ 6250, et. seq.) (PRA). Respondent Elk Grove Unified School District (District) demurs to the causes of action within the Petition and moves to strike the portions of the Petition.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2019

DAPHNE H ADAMS VS. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Petition seeks a writ of mandate and related declaratory and Injunctive relief (collectively, Petition) directing the District to comply with and disclose documents that Petitioner requested pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, §§ 6250, ef. seq.) (PRA). Respondent Elk Grove Unified School District (District) demurs to the causes of action within the Petition and moves to strike the portions of the Petition.

  • Hearing

    Feb 22, 2019

JOHN R C DOE VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Disclosure under this paragraph is required notwithstanding the California Public Records Act, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. Nothing in this paragraph shall preclude a submitting agency prior to disclosure from redacting any information necessary to maintain confidentiality as required by law.” (Penal Code § 11167.5(b)(11).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2019

FRYE VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. ... (7) In order to ensure public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, ... each local agency is hereby required to comply with the California Public Records Act ... and the Ralph M. Brown Act,..."

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

BARNEY VS COMMISSION ON PROFESSIONAL COMPTENCE

Absent from Petitioner's papers is an explanation as to why Petitioner did not avail himself of the discovery procedures available to him as part of the administrative process or did not earlier avail himself of the ability to submit a California Public Records Act request for similar records in the first category. Similarly, there is no evidence that Petitioner was precluded from obtaining documents in the second category during the hearing process.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

TPS PARKING MANAGEMENT LLC ET AL VS CITY OF LA ET AL

Similarly, the California Supreme Court has held that the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) does not require a privilege log for documents withheld from a CPRA production. Haynie v. Superior Court, (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, 1066. Opp. at 12-13. The City’s two arguments are not well taken.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WHEELER VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WHEELER VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

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.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

NAPA COUNTY, OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL

The instant petitions arise in response to a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request submitted by the Napa Valley Register to Respondent Napa County on November 13, 2018. The Request seeks access to or copies of the County’s autopsy reports of four individuals who died March 9, 2018, during a shooting incident at the Yountville Veterans Home. Respondent provided courtesy notices to counsel and/or representatives of each of the four individuals identified in the Request.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2019

BRIAN TRENT ADAMS VS BOARD OF PAROLE HEARINGS EXECUTIVE OFFICER

As such, on December 26th, 2017, Plaintiff made a Public Records request, pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code §§ 6250-6258), requesting a copy of the Parole Suitability Hearing transcripts of every White inmate and every Black inmate, with the race of each inmate printed on the cover page, form [sic] August 22nd, 2011 to the present [Exhibit D: Public Records Request].

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2019

DAPHNE H ADAMS VS. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

documents from the District pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, §§ 6250, e^. seq.) (PRA). The requested documents pertained to the investigation into Petitioner's retaliation complaint. For example, the PRA request asked for all reports, findings and drafts thereof prepared by Ms. Buehler; all recommendations by Ms. Buehler; all witness statements obtained by Ms.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2019

DAPHNE H ADAMS VS. ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

documents from the District pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, §§ 6250, et. seq.) (PRA). The requested documents pertained to the investigation into Petitioner’s retaliation complaint. For example, the PRA request asked for all reports, findings and drafts thereof prepared by Ms. Buehler; all recommendations by Ms. Buehler; all witness statements obtained by Ms.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2019

SITA INFORMATION NETWORKING COMPUTING USA INC. VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS

On November 27, 2017, LAWA informed SITA that it received a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request for the RFP Response, and that LAWA would release an unredacted version of the RFP Response on December 7, 2018 absent a court order prohibiting its release. SITA notified LAWA that it intended to seek a court order. The Petition seeks a traditional writ of mandate preventing LAWA from releasing the RFP Response to the requesters.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

AC WASTE MANAGEMENT VS. WASTE CONNECTIONS

Those records shall be available to those government entities for the purposes of subdivision (a) and as necessary to enforce the collection of local fees, but those records shall be confidential and shall not be subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code).

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2019

CALIFORNIA FAIR PLAN ASSOCIATION VS DAVE JONES

As stated in the legislative counsel's digest to SB 1145: “Existing law establishes the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, which generally provides for open meetings of state bodies, and the California Public Records Act, which generally requires that government records be available for inspection by the public, with specified exceptions. Other provisions of existing law exempt the board of directors of the fund from the application of the 2 acts....

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2019

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LORRAINE VILLASENOR VS THE CITY OF WEST COVINA ET AL

On June 14, 2016, Villasenor mailed a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request for documents to the City Clerk’s office. In this request, Villasenor sought records related to police K-9 dogs, including the frequency of K-9 dog bites, incident reports for K-9 dog bites, the training records for K-9s, and records relating to how the City obtained its K-9 dogs. The request was denied by the City on June 27, 2016.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

HALE VS. STEPHAN

Additionally, because psychotherapy records are protected by Evidence Code section 1014, they are also exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). Evid. Code, § 6254(k).

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BUILDING A BETTER REDONDO ET AL VS CITY OF REDONDO BEACH ET

The FAP’s sixth cause of action alleges violation of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). To enable Petitioners to prepare the administrative record, Petitioners submitted a CPRA request to the City seeking documents and materials constituting the record for the City’s action on the Project. Despite acknowledging the request, the City failed to produce any of the public records sought.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COOGAN VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING PREVENTION PROGRAM

Petitioner seeks document pursuant to the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). The CPRA was enacted "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, 651–52. "[A]ccess to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." Gov.C §6250.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

COOGAN VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY CHILDHOOD LEAD POISONING PREVENTION PROGRAM

Petitioner seeks document pursuant to the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). The CPRA was enacted "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, 651–52. "[A]ccess to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." Gov.C §6250.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

  « 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.