Browse Previous Page | Table of Contents | Browse Next Page

GOVERNMENT CODE

Title 1 GENERAL

Division 7 Miscellaneous

Chapter 3.5 Inspection of Public Records

Article 1 General Provisions

§ 6254. Records exempt from disclosure requirements

Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of the following:

(a) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business, if the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.

(b) Records pertaining to pending litigation to which the public agency is a party, or to claims made pursuant to Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810), until the pending litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.

(c) Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(d) Contained in or related to any of the following:

(1) Applications filed with any state agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of the issuance of securities or of financial institutions, including, but not limited to, banks, savings and loan associations, industrial loan companies, credit unions, and insurance companies.

(2) Examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, any state agency referred to in paragraph (1).

(3) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency communications prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, any state agency referred to in paragraph (1).

(4) Information received in confidence by any state agency referred to in paragraph (1).

(e) Geological and geophysical data, plant production data, and similar information relating to utility systems development, or market or crop reports, that are obtained in confidence from any person.

(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the California Emergency Management Agency, and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. However, state and local law enforcement agencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, carjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13951, unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or unless disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation. However, nothing in this division shall require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflects the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.

Customer lists provided to a state or local police agency by an alarm or security company at the request of the agency shall be construed to be records subject to this subdivision.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, state and local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation:

(1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual's physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds.

(2) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved. The name of a victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 236.1, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3 (as added by Chapter 337 of the Statutes of 2006), 288.3 (as added by Section 6 of Proposition 83 of the November 7, 2006, statewide general election), 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 of the Penal Code may be withheld at the victim's request, or at the request of the victim's parent or guardian if the victim is a minor. When a person is the victim of more than one crime, information disclosing that the person is a victim of a crime defined in any of the sections of the Penal Code set forth in this subdivision may be deleted at the request of the victim, or the victim's parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, in making the report of the crime, or of any crime or incident accompanying the crime, available to the public in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph.

(3) Subject to the restrictions of Section 841.5 of the Penal Code and this subdivision, the current address of every individual arrested by the agency and the current address of the victim of a crime, where the requester declares under penalty of perjury that the request is made for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purpose, or that the request is made for investigation purposes by a licensed private investigator as described in Chapter 11.3 (commencing with Section 7512) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code. However, the address of the victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 236.1, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3 (as added by Chapter 337 of the Statutes of 2006), 288.3 (as added by Section 6 of Proposition 83 of the November 7, 2006, statewide general election), 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 of the Penal Code shall remain confidential. Address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph may not be used directly or indirectly, or furnished to another, to sell a product or service to any individual or group of individuals, and the requester shall execute a declaration to that effect under penalty of perjury. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit or limit a scholarly, journalistic, political, or government use of address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph.

(g) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment, or academic examination, except as provided for in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 99150) of Part 65 of Division 14 of Title 3 of the Education Code.

(h) The contents of real estate appraisals or engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by the state or local agency relative to the acquisition of property, or to prospective public supply and construction contracts, until all of the property has been acquired or all of the contract agreement obtained. However, the law of eminent domain shall not be affected by this provision.

(i) Information required from any taxpayer in connection with the collection of local taxes that is received in confidence and the disclosure of the information to other persons would result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the person supplying the information.

(j) Library circulation records kept for the purpose of identifying the borrower of items available in libraries, and library and museum materials made or acquired and presented solely for reference or exhibition purposes. The exemption in this subdivision shall not apply to records of fines imposed on the borrowers.

(k) Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.

(l) Correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor's office or in the custody of or maintained by the Governor's Legal Affairs Secretary. However, public records shall not be transferred to the custody of the Governor's Legal Affairs Secretary to evade the disclosure provisions of this chapter.

(m) In the custody of or maintained by the Legislative Counsel, except those records in the public database maintained by the Legislative Counsel that are described in Section 10248.

(n) Statements of personal worth or personal financial data required by a licensing agency and filed by an applicant with the licensing agency to establish his or her personal qualification for the license, certificate, or permit applied for.

(o) Financial data contained in applications for financing under Division 27 (commencing with Section 44500) of the Health and Safety Code, where an authorized officer of the California Pollution Control Financing Authority determines that disclosure of the financial data would be competitively injurious to the applicant and the data is required in order to obtain guarantees from the United States Small Business Administration. The California Pollution Control Financing Authority shall adopt rules for review of individual requests for confidentiality under this section and for making available to the public those portions of an application that are subject to disclosure under this chapter.

(p) Records of state agencies related to activities governed by Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 3512), Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 3525), and Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 3560) of Division 4, that reveal a state agency's deliberative processes, impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work products, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees who do not have full collective bargaining and representation rights under these chapters. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to limit the disclosure duties of a state agency with respect to any other records relating to the activities governed by the employee relations acts referred to in this subdivision.

(q) (1) Records of state agencies related to activities governed by Article 2.6 (commencing with Section 14081), Article 2.8 (commencing with Section 14087.5), and Article 2.91 (commencing with Section 14089) of Chapter 7 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, that reveal the special negotiator's deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with providers of health care services, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees.

(2) Except for the portion of a contract containing the rates of payment, contracts for inpatient services entered into pursuant to these articles, on or after April 1, 1984, shall be open to inspection one year after they are fully executed. If a contract for inpatient services that is entered into prior to April 1, 1984, is amended on or after April 1, 1984, the amendment, except for any portion containing the rates of payment, shall be open to inspection one year after it is fully executed. If the California Medical Assistance Commission enters into contracts with health care providers for other than inpatient hospital services, those contracts shall be open to inspection one year after they are fully executed.

(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection under this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the entire contract or amendment shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and the Legislative Analyst's Office. The committee and that office shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments until the time a contract or amendment is fully open to inspection by the public.

(r) Records of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code maintained by, or in the possession of, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency.

(s) A final accreditation report of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals that has been transmitted to the State Department of Health Care Services pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1282 of the Health and Safety Code.

(t) Records of a local hospital district, formed pursuant to Division 23 (commencing with Section 32000) of the Health and Safety Code, or the records of a municipal hospital, formed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 37600) or Article 8 (commencing with Section 37650) of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4 of this code, that relate to any contract with an insurer or nonprofit hospital service plan for inpatient or outpatient services for alternative rates pursuant to Section 10133 of the Insurance Code. However, the record shall be open to inspection within one year after the contract is fully executed.

(u) (1) Information contained in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department that indicates when or where the applicant is vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant's medical or psychological history or that of members of his or her family.

(2) The home address and telephone number of peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.

(3) The home address and telephone number of peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.

(v) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board related to activities governed by Part 6.3 (commencing with Section 12695), Part 6.5 (commencing with Section 12700), Part 6.6 (commencing with Section 12739.5), and Part 6.7 (commencing with Section 12739.70) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, and that reveal any of the following:

(A) The deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board, entities with which the board is considering a contract, or entities with which the board is considering or enters into any other arrangement under which the board provides, receives, or arranges services or reimbursement.

(B) The impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.

(2) (A) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to Part 6.3 (commencing with Section 12695), Part 6.5 (commencing with Section 12700), Part 6.6 (commencing with Section 12739.5), or Part 6.7 (commencing with Section 12739.70) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, on or after July 1, 1991, shall be open to inspection one year after their effective dates.

(B) If a contract that is entered into prior to July 1, 1991, is amended on or after July 1, 1991, the amendment, except for any portion containing the rates of payment, shall be open to inspection one year after the effective date of the amendment.

(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto, until the contracts or amendments to the contracts are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (3).

(w) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board related to activities governed by Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 10700) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, and that reveal the deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with health plans, or the impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.

(2) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts for health coverage entered into pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 10700) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, on or after January 1, 1993, shall be open to inspection one year after they have been fully executed.

(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto, until the contracts or amendments to the contracts are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (2).

(x) Financial data contained in applications for registration, or registration renewal, as a service contractor filed with the Director of Consumer Affairs pursuant to Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 9800) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, for the purpose of establishing the service contractor's net worth, or financial data regarding the funded accounts held in escrow for service contracts held in force in this state by a service contractor.

(y) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board related to activities governed by Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, and that reveal any of the following:

(A) The deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board, entities with which the board is considering a contract, or entities with which the board is considering or enters into any other arrangement under which the board provides, receives, or arranges services or reimbursement.

(B) The impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.

(2) (A) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, on or after January 1, 1998, shall be open to inspection one year after their effective dates.

(B) If a contract entered into pursuant to Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code is amended, the amendment shall be open to inspection one year after the effective date of the amendment.

(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto until the contract or amendments to a contract are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3).

(5) The exemption from disclosure provided pursuant to this subdivision for the contracts, deliberative processes, discussions, communications, negotiations, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff shall also apply to the contracts, deliberative processes, discussions, communications, negotiations, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of applicants pursuant to Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code.

(z) Records obtained pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 2891.1 of the Public Utilities Code.

(aa) A document prepared by or for a state or local agency that assesses its vulnerability to terrorist attack or other criminal acts intended to disrupt the public agency's operations and that is for distribution or consideration in a closed session.

(ab) Critical infrastructure information, as defined in Section 131(3) of Title 6 of the United States Code, that is voluntarily submitted to the California Emergency Management Agency for use by that office, including the identity of the person who or entity that voluntarily submitted the information. As used in this subdivision, “voluntarily submitted” means submitted in the absence of the office exercising any legal authority to compel access to or submission of critical infrastructure information. This subdivision shall not affect the status of information in the possession of any other state or local governmental agency.

(ac) All information provided to the Secretary of State by a person for the purpose of registration in the Advance Health Care Directive Registry, except that those records shall be released at the request of a health care provider, a public guardian, or the registrant's legal representative.

(ad) The following records of the State Compensation Insurance Fund:

(1) Records related to claims pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 3200) of Division 4 of the Labor Code, to the extent that confidential medical information or other individually identifiable information would be disclosed.

(2) Records related to the discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the fund, and any related deliberations.

(3) Records related to the impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes of meetings or sessions that are lawfully closed to the public, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the fund or its staff, on the development of rates, contracting strategy, underwriting, or competitive strategy pursuant to the powers granted to the fund in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code.

(4) Records obtained to provide workers' compensation insurance under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, including, but not limited to, any medical claims information, policyholder information provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to prevent an insurance agent or broker from obtaining proprietary information or other information authorized by law to be obtained by the agent or broker, and information on rates, pricing, and claims handling received from brokers.

(5) (A) Records that are trade secrets pursuant to Section 6276.44, or Article 11 (commencing with Section 1060) of Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code, including without limitation, instructions, advice, or training provided by the State Compensation Insurance Fund to its board members, officers, and employees regarding the fund's special investigation unit, internal audit unit, and informational security, marketing, rating, pricing, underwriting, claims handling, audits, and collections.

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the portions of records containing trade secrets shall be available for review by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Department of Insurance to ensure compliance with applicable law.

(6) (A) Internal audits containing proprietary information and the following records that are related to an internal audit:

(i) Personal papers and correspondence of any person providing assistance to the fund when that person has requested in writing that his or her papers and correspondence be kept private and confidential. Those papers and correspondence shall become public records if the written request is withdrawn, or upon order of the fund.

(ii) Papers, correspondence, memoranda, or any substantive information pertaining to any audit not completed or an internal audit that contains proprietary information.

(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the portions of records containing proprietary information, or any information specified in subparagraph (A) shall be available for review by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Department of Insurance to ensure compliance with applicable law.

(7) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), contracts entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code shall be open to inspection one year after the contract has been fully executed.

(B) If a contract entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code is amended, the amendment shall be open to inspection one year after the amendment has been fully executed.

(C) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.

(D) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto until the contract or amendments to a contract are open to inspection pursuant to this paragraph.

(E) Nothing in this paragraph is intended to apply to documents related to contracts with public entities that are not otherwise expressly confidential as to that public entity.

(F) For purposes of this paragraph, “fully executed” means the point in time when all of the necessary parties to the contract have signed the contract.

Nothing in this section prevents any agency from opening its records concerning the administration of the agency to public inspection, unless disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law.

Nothing in this section prevents any health facility from disclosing to a certified bargaining agent relevant financing information pursuant to Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 158).

Added Stats 1981 ch 684 § 1.5, effective September 23, 1981, operative January 1, 1982. Amended Stats 1982 ch 83 § 1, effective March 1, 1982, ch 1492 § 2, ch 1594 § 2, effective September 30, 1982; Stats 1983 ch 200 § 1, effective July 12, 1983, ch 621 § 1, ch 955 § 1, ch 1315 § 1; Stats 1984 ch 1516 § 1, effective September 28, 1984; Stats 1985 ch 103 § 1; ch 1218 § 1; Stats 1986 ch 185 § 2; Stats 1987 ch 634 § 1, effective September 14, 1987, ch 635 § 1; Stats 1988 ch 870 § 1, ch 1371 § 2; Stats 1989 ch 191 § 1; Stats 1990 ch 1106 § 2 (SB 2106); Stats 1991 ch 278 § 1.2 (AB 99), effective July 30, 1991, ch 607 § 4 (SB 98); Stats 1992 ch 3 § 1 (AB 1681), effective February 10, 1992, ch 72 § 2 (AB 1525), effective May 28, 1992, ch 1128 § 2 (AB 1672), operative July 1, 1993; Stats 1993 ch 606 § 1 (AB 166), effective October 1, 1993 (ch 1265 prevails); Stats 1993 ch 610 § 1 (AB 6), effective October 1, 1993; Stats 1993 ch 611 § 1 (SB 60), effective October 1, 1993; Stats 1993 ch 1265 § 14 (SB 798); S tats 1994 ch 82 § 1 (AB 2547), ch 1263 § 1.5 (AB 1328); Stats 1995 ch 438 § 1 (AB 985), ch 777 § 2 (AB 958), ch 778 § 1.5 (SB 1059); Stats 1996 ch 1075 § 11 (SB 1444); Stats 1997 ch 623 § 1 (AB 1126); Stats 1998 ch 13 § 1 (AB 487), ch 110 § 1 (AB 1795) (ch 110 prevails), ch 485 § 83 (AB 2803); Stats 2000 ch 184 § 1 (AB 1349); Stats 2001 ch 159 § 105 (SB 662); Stats 2002 ch 175 § 1 (SB 1643); Stats 2003 ch 230 § 1 (AB 1762), effective August 11, 2003, ch 673 § 12 (SB 2); Stats 2004 ch 8 § 1 (AB 1209), effective January 22, 2004, ch 183 § 134 (AB 3082), ch 228 § 2 (SB 1103), effective August 16, 2004, ch 882 § 1 (AB 2445), ch 937 § 2.5 (AB 1933); Stats 2005 ch 22 § 71 (SB 1108), ch 476 § 1 (AB 1495), effective October 4, 2005, ch 670 § 1.5 (SB 922), effective October 7, 2005; Stats 2006 ch 538 § 232 (SB 1852); Stats 2007 ch 577 § 1 (AB 1750), effective October 13, 2007, ch 578 § 1.5 (SB 449); Stats 2008 ch 344 § 1 (SB 1145), effective September 26, 2008, ch 358 § 2 (AB 2810), ch 372 § 1.3 (AB 38), effective January 1, 2009; Stats 2010 ch 32 § 1 (AB 1887) (ch 32 prevails), effective June 29, 2010, ch 178 § 33 (SB 1115), effective January 1, 2011, operative January 1, 2012; Stats 2011 ch 285 § 7 (AB 1402), effective January 1, 2012.

Editor's Notes- Part 6.3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code commences with Ins C § 12694.

Former Sections: Former § 6254, similar to the present section, was added Stats 1968 ch 1473 § 39, amended Stats 1970 ch 1231 § 1.5, ch 1295 § 1.5, Stats 1975 ch 1231 § 1, ch 1246 § 3, Stats 1976 ch 314 § 1, Stats 1977 ch 650 § 1, effective September 7, 1977, Stats 1978 ch 1217 § 3, ch 1217 § 4, operative July 1, 1979, Stats 1980 ch 519 § 1, Stats 1981 ch 265 § 1, ch 684 § 1, effective September 23, 1981, and repealed, operative January 1, 1982, by its own terms.

Amendments:

1982 Amendment (ch 83): (1) Amended subd (f) by (a) substituting “state and local law enforcement agencies” for “local law enforcement agencies and the California Highway Commission” in the first sentence; and (b) adding the second paragraph; and (2) deleted the former last paragraph which read: “This section shall become operative on January 1, 1982.”

1982 Amendment (ch 1594): Added subd (q). (As amended Stats 1982 ch 1594, compared to the section as amended by Stats 1982 ch 83. This section was also amended by an earlier chapter, ch 1492. See Gov C § 9605.)

1983 Amendment (ch 200): Added subd (r).

1983 Amendment (ch 1315): Added subd (s). (As amended Stats 1983 ch 1315, compared to the section as amended by Stats 1983 ch 200. This section was also amended by two earlier chapters, chs 621 and 955. See Gov C § 9605.)

1984 Amendment: In addition to making technical changes, (1) substituted subd (q) for former subd (q) which read: “(q) Records of state agencies related to activities governed by Articles 2.6, 2.8, and 2.91 of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, which reveal the special negotiator's deliberative processes, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy, or which provide instruction, advice, or training to employees. All or portions of contracts entered into pursuant to these articles may be exempted from the provisions of this chapter as specified by the terms of each contract.“Nothing in this section is to be construed as preventing any agency from opening its records concerning the administration of the agency to public inspection, unless disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law.”; and (2) added the last two paragraphs.

1985 Amendment: (1) Amended the second paragraph of subd (q) by adding (a) “Except for the portion of a contract containing the rates of payment,” and (b) “, except for any portion containing the rates of payment,”; and (2) added the third and fourth paragraphs of subd (q). (As amended by Stats 1985, ch 1218, compared to the section as it read prior to 1985. This section was also amended by an earlier chapter, ch 103. See Gov C § 9605.)

1986 Amendment: (1) Deleted “of Title 1 of the Government Code” after “Section 810)” in subd (b); (2) substituted “paragraph (1)” for “subdivision (1)” wherever it appears in subd (d); (3) substituted “as defined by subdivision (c)” for “of violence as defined by subdivision (b)” in the first paragraph of subd (f); and (4) added subd (t).

1987 Amendment (ch 634): Added the second and third sentences of subd (f)(2).

1987 Amendment (ch 635): Substituted “is to be construed as preventing” for “prevents” in the last two paragraphs.

1988 Amendment: (1) Substituted “. However” for “; provided, however, that” at the end of the first sentence of the first paragraph of subd (f); (2) added “273.5,” after “273d” in the first sentence of subd (f)(2); and (3) substituted “. However” for “, provided, however” at the end of the first sentence of subd (h).

1989 Amendment: Added “273.5,” in the first sentence of subd (f)(2).

1990 Amendment: Added subd (v).

1991 Amendment (ch 278): Added subd (w).

1991 Amendment (ch 607): In addition to making technical changes, added “422.6, 422.7, or 422.75” wherever it appears in the second paragraph of subd (f)(2).

1992 Amendment (ch 3): Added “Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code,” at the beginning of subd (f)(2).

1992 Amendment (ch 72): Added “or the records of a municipal hospital, formed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 37600) or Article 8 (commencing with Section 37650) of Chapter 5 of Division 3 of Title 4 of this code,” in the first sentence of subd (t).

1992 Amendment (ch 1128): Added subd (x).

1993 Amendment (ch 611): (1) Added “carjacking” after “larceny, robbery,” in the first sentence of subd (f); (2) amended subd (p) by (a) adding “, Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 3525, and Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 3560)”; and (b) deleting “Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 3525) of Division 4 of Title 1, and Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 3560) of Division 4 of Title 1,” after “of Title 1,” in subd (p); and (3) substituted “firearms issued pursuant to Section 12050 of the Penal Code” for “concealed weapons issued” in subd (u). (As amended Stats 1993 ch 611, compared to the section as it read prior to 1993. This section was also amended by two earlier chapters, chs 606 and 610. See Gov C § 9605.)

1993 Amendment (ch 1265): (1) Deleted “carjacking,” after “larceny, robbery,” in the first sentence of subd (f); (2) substituted “of Division 4 of Title 1, Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 3525) of Division 4 of Title 1” in subd (p); (3) deleted former subd (v) which read: “(v) Residence addresses contained in licensure applications and registration applications for collection agencies as may be required by the Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services of the Department of Consumer Affairs pursuant to Sections 6876.2, 6877, 6878, and 6894.3 of the Business and Professions Code.”; (4) redesignated former subds (w) and (x) to be subds (v) and (w); and (5) added subd (x).

1994 Amendment: Added (1) “carjacking” after “explosion, larceny, robbery,” in subd (f); and (2) “, except those records in the public data base maintained by the Legislative Counsel that are described in Section 10248” in subd (m). (As amended Stats 1994 ch 1263, compared to the section as it read prior to 1994. This section was also amended by an earlier chapter, ch 82. See Gov C § 9605.)

1995 Amendment: In addition to making technical changes, (1) substituted “Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13” for “Section 6254.7” in the introductory clause; (2) deleted “, current address,” after “The full name” in subd (f)(1); (3) amended subd (f)(2) by substituting “and age of the victim” for “, age, and current address of the victim, except that the address of the victim of any crime defined by Section 261, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, or 422.75 of the Penal Code shall not be disclosed” in the first sentence; and (b) adding “220” and “or 646.9” wherever it appears; and (4) added subd (f)(3). (As amended Stats 1994 ch 778, compared to the section as it read prior to 1994. This section was also amended by two earlier chapters, chs 438 and 777. See Gov C § 9605.)

1996 Amendment: (1) Amended subd (f)(2) by substituting (a) “Section 220, 261, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9” for “Section 220, 261, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9” in the second sentence; and (b) “Section 220, 261, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9” for “Section 220, 261, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9” in the third sentence; and (2) substituted “Section 220, 261, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9” for “Section 220, 261, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9” in subd (f)(3).

1997 Amendment: Added (1) subd (y); and (2) the third paragraph of subd (y).

1998 Amendment: (1) Designated former subd (u) to be subd (u)(1); and (2) added subds (u)(2), (u)(3) and (z).

2000 Amendment: (1) Added “261.5,” after “Section 220, 261,” both times it appears in subd (2) and subd (3) of the second paragraph of subd (f); (2) amended subd (u) by adding (a) subdivision designation (u)(1); and (b) subd (u)(2); and (3) added subd (z).

2001 Amendment: In addition to making technical changes, (1) added “any of the following” in the introductory clause of subd (d); (2) substituted “Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision” for “Other provisions of this subdivision notwithstanding” in the introductory clause of subd (f); (3) amended the first paragraph of subd (q) by substituting (a) “Article” for “Articles” after “governed by”; (b) “Article 2.8” for “2.8”; and (c) “Article 2.9” for “2.9”; and (4) substituted “committee” for “Joint Legislative Audit Committee” in the last paragraph of subd (q) and in subds (v)(4), (w)(3), and (y)(4).

2002 Amendment: (1) Added the comma after “Records” in subd (k); and (2) added subd (aa).

2003 Amendment (ch 230): (1) Substituted “memorandums” for “memoranda” in subd (a); (2) substituted “database” for “data base” in subd (m); (3) added “or Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50)” in subd (y)(1); (4) added “or Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50)” in subd (y)(2)(A); (5) added “or Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50)” in subd (y)(2)(B); and (6) added subd (y)(5).

2003 Amendment (ch 673): Added subd (bb).

2004 Amendment (ch 8): (1) Substituted “memoranda” for “memorandums” in subd (a); (2) amended subd (f) by (a) substituting “subdivision (b) of Section 13951” for “subdivision (c) of Section 13960” in the first paragraph; and (b) added the second paragraph; (3) substituted “maintained by the Governor's Legal Affairs Secretary,” for “maintained by the Governor's legal affairs secretary,” in subd (k)(1); (4) substituted “or for a state or local agency” for “a local agency” in subd (aa); and (5) added subds (bb)(1)-(4).

2004 Amendment (ch 228): (1) Amended subd (f)(3) by (a) substituting “may not be used directly or indirectly, or furnished to another, for “shall not be used directly or indirectly”; and (b) adding the last sentence; (2) amended the last paragraph of subd (q) by substituting (a) “Legislative Analyst's Office” for “Legislative Analyst's office” at the end of the first sentence; and (b) “that” for “the” in the last sentence; and (3) added subd (cc).

2004 Amendment (ch 937): (1) Amended subd (f)(3) by (a) substituting “may not” for “shall not” before “be used directly or indirectly”; and (b) adding the last sentence; (2) amended the last paragraph of subd (q) by substituting (a) “Legislative Analyst's Office” for “Legislative Analyst's office” at the end of the first sentence; and (b) “that” for “the” in the last sentence; and (3) added subd (cc).

2005 Amendment (ch 476): (1) Substituted “Analyst’s Office” for “Analyst’s Office” in the fifth sentence of subd (q); and (2) substituted subd (bb) for the former subd (bb) which read: “(bb)(1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board related to activities governed by Part 8.7 (commencing with Section 2120) of Division 2 of the Labor Code, and that reveal the deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board, or the impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.“(2)(A) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to Part 8.7 (commencing with Section 2120) of Division 2 of the Labor Code on or after January 1, 2004, shall be open to inspection one year after they have been fully executed.“(B) In the event that a contract entered into pursuant to Part 8.7 (commencing with Section 2120) of Division 2 of the Labor Code is amended, the amendment shall be open to inspection one year after the amendment has been fully executed.“(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.“(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto until the contract or amendments to a contract are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3).”

2005 Amendment (ch 670): Amended subd (r) by adding (1) “and records of Native American places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code” after “sacred places”; (2) “, or in the possession of,” after “maintained by”; and (3) “, another state agency, or a local agency” after “Native American Heritage Commission”.

2006 Amendment: (1) Substituted “if” for “provided that” after “course of business,” in subd (a); (2) amended subd (f) by (a) substituting “. However,” for “, except that” after “or licensing purposes”; and (b) substituting “reflects” for “reflect” after “investigative files that”; (3) substituted “However,” for “, except that” after “Business and Professions Code.” in subd (f)(3); (4) substituted “. However,” for “, provided that” after “Legal Affairs Secretary” in subd (l); (5) substituted “products” for “product” after “meeting minutes, research, work” in subd (p); (6) substituted “If” for “In the event that” after “are fully executed.” in subd (q); (7) substituted “If” for “In the event that” at the beginning of subd (v)(2)(B); (8) deleted “for agreement” after “and that reveal” in subd (w)(1); (9) substituted “is” for “are” after “amendments to a contract” in subd (w)(3); (10) added “and” after “of the Insurance Code,” in subd (y)(1); (11) added subd (bb); (12) redesignated former subd (bb) to be subd (cc); and (13) added “Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 158)” after “National Labor Relations” in subd (cc).

2007 Amendment (ch 577): (1) Added “Division 14 of Title 3 of” in subd (g); (2) deleted “of Title 1” after “of Division 4” in the first sentence of subd (p); (3) substituted “State Department of Health Care Services” for “State Department of Health Services” in subd (s); (4) amended the first sentence of subd (t) by (a) adding “Part 2 of” after “of Chapter 5 of”; and (b) deleting “and 11512” after “Section 10133”; (5) substituted “Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board” for “Major Risk Medical Insurance Program” in subds (v)(1) and (w)(1); (6) substituted “entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board” for “health plans”in subds (v)(1) and (y)(1); (7) substituted “their effective dates” for “they have been fully executed” at the end of subds (v)(2)(A) and (y)(2)(A); (8) deleted “for health coverage” after “If a contract” in subd (v)(2)(B); (9) substituted “Chapter 8” for “Chapter 14” in subds (w)(1) and (w)(2); (10) substituted “If” for “In the event of” at the beginning of subd (y)(2)(B); (11) deleted “with health plans” after “communications, negotiations” wherever it appears in subd (y)(5); and (12) redesignated former subds (bb) and (cc) to be subds (ab) and (ac).

2007 Amendment (ch 578): (1) Amended subd (f)(2) by (a) substituting “Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3 (as added by Chapter 337 of the Statutes of 2006), 288.3 (as added by Section 6 of Proposition 83 of the November 7, 2006, statewide general election), 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9 or 647.6” for “Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9”; and (b) substituting “in any of the sections of the Penal Code set forth in this subdivision” for “by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9 of the Penal Code”; (2) substituted “Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3 (as added by Chapter 337 of the Statutes of 2006), 288.3 (as added by Section 6 of Proposition 83 of the November 7, 2006, statewide general election), 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6” for “Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5,286, 288, 288a,289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, or 646.9,” in subd (f)(3); (3) added “of Division 14 of Title 3” in subd (g); (4) deleted “of Title 1” after “of Division 4” in subd (p); (5) substituted “State Department of Health Care Services” for “State Department of Health Services” in subd (s); (6) amended subd (t) by (a) adding “of Part 2” after “of , Chapter 5”; and (b) deleting “or 11512” after “Section 10133”; (7) amended subd (v)(1) by (a) substituting “Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board” for “Major Risk Medical Insurance Program”; and (b) substituting “entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board” for “health plans”; (8) substituted “their effective dates” for “they have been fully executed” in subd (v)(2)(A); (9) deleted “for health coverage” after “If a contract” in subd (v)(2)(B); (10) amended subd (w)(1) by (a) substituting “Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board” for “Major Risk Medical Insurance Program”; and (b) substituting “Chapter 8” for “Chapter 14”; (11) substituted “Chapter 8” for “Chapter 14” in subd (w)(2); (12) substituted “entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board” for “health plans” in subd (y)(1); (13) substituted “their effective dates” for “they have been fully executed” in subd (y)(2)(A); (14) substituted “If” for “In the event that” in subd (y)(2)(B); (15) deleted “with health plans” after “communications, negotiations” both times it appears in subd (y)(5); and (16) redesignated former subds (bb) and (cc) to be subds (ab) and (ac).

2008 Amendment (ch 344): Added subd (ad).

2008 Amendment (ch 372): (1) Amended subd (f) by (a) adding “the California Emergency Management Agency,” in the first sentence of the first paragraph; and (b) added “236.1” to the Section list in subds (f)(2) and (f)(3); and (2) substituted “contracts or amendments to the contracts are” for “contract or amendments to a contract is” in subds (v)(4) and (w)(3); and (3) substituted “Emergency Management Agency” for “Office of Homeland Security” in subd (ab). (As amended Stats 2008 ch 372, compared to ch 344. This section was also amended by an earlier chapter, ch 358. See Gov C § 9605.)

2010 Amendment: (1) Amended subd (v)(1) by (a) substituting a comma for “and” after “Section 12695)”; (b) adding “, Part 6.6 (commencing with Section 12739.5), and Part 6.7 (commencing with Section 12739.70)”; (c) substituting “any of the following:” for “the deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board, or the impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.”; and (d) adding subds (v)(1)(A) and (v)(1)(B); (2) amended subd (v)(2)(A) by (a) deleting “for health coverage” after “payment, contracts”; (b) substituting a comma for “or” after “Section 12695)”; and (c) adding “, Part 6.6 (commencing with Section 12739.5), or Part 6.7 (commencing with Section 12739.70)”; (3) substituted “effective date of the amendment” for “amendment has been fully executed” in subd (v)(2)(B); (4) amended subd (y)(1) by (a) substituting “any of the following:” for “the deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board, or the impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.”; and (b) adding subds (y)(1)(A) and (y)(1)(B); and (5) substituted “effective date of the amendment” for “amendment has been fully executed” in subd (y)(2)(B).

2011 Amendment: (1) Added subdivision designations (q)(1)-(q)(4); (2) substituted “Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215” for “Section 12050” in subds (u)(1)-(u)(3); and (3) substituted “subdivision (f)” for “subdivision (c)” in subd (z).

Historical Derivation: Former Gov C § 6254, as added Stats 1968 ch 1473 § 39, amended Stats 1970 ch 1231 § 11.5, ch 1295 § 1.5, Stats 1975 ch 1231 § 1, ch 1246 § 3, Stats 1976 ch 314 § 1, Stats 1977 ch 650 § 1, Stats 1978 ch 1217 § 3, ch 1217 § 4, Stats 1980 ch 519 § 1, Stats 1981 ch 265 § 1, ch 684 § 1.

Note- Stats 1986 ch 185 provides:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(a) That district hospitals provide efficient and cost conscious health care services in many areas of the state.

(b) Because of Proposition 13, on the ballot of June 6, 1978, which added Article XIIIA to the California Constitution, and increasing pressure for cost containment in the health care industry, district hospitals are increasingly put into competitive positions with nonprofit and proprietary hospitals.

(c) Because district hospitals are subject to public meeting and disclosure laws, they are, with growing frequency, forced to disclose financial and planning information in the nature of trade secrets, which information is of value to competing hospitals.

(d) Therefore, it is necessary in the interest of providing healthy competition for health care services to provide a limited exemption for district hospitals for purposes of the laws pertaining to open meetings and public records.

Stats 1991 ch 278 provides:

SEC. 35. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this act are severable.

Stats 1992 ch 1128 provides:

SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to guarantee the availability and renewability of health insurance to small employers, to prevent abusive rating practices, to require disclosure of rating practices to purchasers, to establish rules for continuity of coverage for employers and covered individuals, to improve the efficiency and fairness of the small group health coverage marketplace, and to help make coverage more affordable by establishing a purchasing pool for small employers. The provisions of this act are developed to assure the availability of appropriate health benefit plans to small employers that employ 3 to 50 employees and to establish a purchasing pool to provide health benefits coverage to employees of participating employers in the manner of a single large group. Carriers in the small employer market are required to rate within prescribed limits, to guarantee the issuance and renewability of health coverage, to guarantee the continuity of coverage, to adhere to limitations on the exclusion of preexisting conditions, and to adhere to rules regarding minimum participation requirements.

The Voluntary Alliance Uniting Employers Purchasing Program will make available through its contracting process a choice of carriers that provide, arrange, or pay for quality health services in a cost-effective manner. It will provide its participants with the benefits of its contracting expertise and the administrative savings that can result from the pooling of small groups.

SEC. 15. This act shall become operative July 1, 1993, except for Section 14 which shall become operative March 1, 1993.

Stats 1995 ch 778 provides:

SEC. 3. The amendments made by this bill to paragraphs (1) and (2) of, and the addition of paragraph (3) to, subdivision (f) of Section 6254 of the Government Code, solely with respect to the disclosure and use of address information, shall become operative on July 1, 1996, and any amendments made to those provisions by AB 958 or AB 1158 shall remain operative until that time, should this bill be chaptered after AB 958 or AB 1158, or both.

Stats 2003 ch 673, as amended by Stats 2004 ch 183 § 396, provides:

SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that working Californians and their families should have health insurance coverage.

(b) The Legislature further finds and declares that most working Californians obtain their health insurance coverage through their employment.

(c) The Legislature finds and declares that in 2001, more than 6,000,000 Californians lacked health insurance coverage at some time and 3,600,000 Californians had no health insurance coverage at any time.

(d) The Legislature finds and declares that more than 80 percent of Californians without health insurance coverage are working people or their families. Most of these working Californians without health insurance coverage work for employers who do not offer health benefits.

(e) The Legislature finds and declares that employment-based health insurance coverage provides access for millions of Californians to the latest advances in medical science, including diagnostic procedures, surgical interventions, and pharmaceutical therapies.

(f) The Legislature finds and declares that people who are covered by health insurance have better health outcomes than those who lack coverage. Persons without health insurance are more likely to be in poor health, more likely to have missed needed medications and treatment, and more likely to have chronic conditions that are not properly managed.

(g) The Legislature finds and declares that persons without health insurance are at risk of financial ruin and that medical debt is the second most common cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States.

(h) The Legislature further finds and declares that the State of California provides health insurance to low- and moderate-income working parents and their children through the Medi-Cal and Healthy Families programs and pays the cost of coverage for those working people who are not provided health coverage through employment. The Legislature further finds and declares that the State of California and local governments fund county hospitals and clinics, community clinics, and other safety net providers that provide care to those working people whose employers fail to provide affordable health coverage to workers and their families as well as to other uninsured persons.

(i) The Legislature further finds and declares that controlling health care costs can be more readily achieved if a greater share of working people and their families have health benefits so that cost shifting is minimized.

(j) The Legislature finds and declares that the social and economic burden created by the lack of health coverage for some workers and their dependents creates a burden on other employers, the State of California, affected workers, and the families of affected workers who suffer ill health and risk financial ruin.

(k) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to assure that working Californians and their families have health benefits and that employers pay a user fee to the State of California so that the state may serve as a purchasing agent to pool those fees to purchase coverage for all working Californians and their families that is not tied to employment with an individual employer. However, consistent with this act, if the employer voluntarily provides proof of health care coverage, that employer is to be exempted from payment of the fee.

(l ) It is further the intent of the Legislature that workers who work on a seasonal basis, for multiple employers, or who work multiple jobs for the same employer should be afforded the opportunity to have health coverage in the same manner as those who work full-time for a single employer.

(m) The Legislature recognizes the vital role played by the health care safety net and the potential impact this act may have on the resources available to county hospital systems and clinics, including physicians or networks of physicians that refer patients to such hospitals and clinics, as well as community clinics and other safety net providers. It is the intent of the Legislature to preserve the viability of this important health care resource.

(n) Nothing in this act shall be construed to diminish or otherwise change existing protections in law for persons eligible for public programs including, but not limited to, Medi-Cal, Healthy Families, California Children's Services, Genetically Handicapped Persons Program, county mental health programs, programs administered by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, or programs administered by local education agencies. It is further the intent of the Legislature to preserve benefits available to the recipients of these programs, including dental, vision, and mental health benefits.

SEC. 13. (a) The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, except as provided in subdivision (b) or (c).

(b) In the event that the provisions of Section 2160.1 of the Labor Code are held invalid and this action is affirmed on final appeal, an employer may qualify for a full credit for those amounts spent for providing or reimbursing health care benefits, allowable by state law as a deductible business expense if the amount spent equals or exceeds the lower of the cost for the Healthy Families Program or 150 percent of the cost for Medi-Cal 1931(b) coverage. In no instance shall the amount of the credit exceed the amount of the fee that would otherwise have been paid. The Employment Development Department shall specify the manner and means of submitting proof to obtain the credit.

(c) In the event that Chapter 8.7 (commencing with Section 2120) of Division 2 of the Labor Code is held invalid, Article 3.11 (commencing with Section 1357.20) of Chapter 2.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code and Chapter 8.1 (commencing with Section 11760 [10760]) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code shall become inoperative. [As amended Stats 2004 ch 673 § 396.]

SEC. 14. This act shall not become operative unless AB 1528 of the 2003-04 Regular Session is also enacted and becomes operative.

Stats 2005 ch 476 provides:

SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which amends Section 6254 of the Government Code, imposes a limitation on the public's right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

In order to ensure that important economic infrastructure, including, but not limited to, the manufacturing, transportation, refining, and processing industries, is protected from terrorist attack, it is necessary that critical infrastructure information, as defined in Section 131(3) of Title 6 of the United States Code, that is voluntarily submitted to the California Office of Homeland Security for use by that office, be exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code).

Stats 2007 ch 577 provides:

SEC. 27. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which amends Section 6254 of the Government Code, and Section 5 of this act, which amends Section 11126 of the Government Code, impose limitations on the public's right of access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by these limitations and the need for protecting that interest:

In order to clarify existing law and to ensure that the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board is not constrained in exercising its fiduciary powers and obligations to negotiate on behalf of the public as it provides or funds health care coverage for low-income persons and populations for whom this coverage is difficult to secure, the limitations on the public's right of access imposed by Sections 1 and 5 of this act are necessary.

Stats 2008 ch 372 provides:

SEC. 53. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which amends Section 6254 of the Government Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

Preventing the disclosure of certain records and procedures of the California Emergency Management Agency will preserve the security of the state.

Stats 2010 ch 32 provides:

SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that Sections 1 and 2 of this act, which amend Sections 6254 and 11126 of the Government Code, impose a limitation on the public's right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

In order to clarify existing law and to ensure that the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board is not constrained in exercising its fiduciary powers and obligations to negotiate on behalf of the public as it implements federal health care reform pursuant to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148), the limitations on the public's right of access imposed by Sections 1 and 2 of this act are necessary.

SEC. 5. This act shall become operative only if Senate Bill 227 of the 2009-10 Regular Session is also enacted and becomes operative.

Stats 2011 ch 285 provides:

SEC. 30. This act shall only become operative if Senate Bill 1080, enacted as Chapter 711 of the Statutes of 2010, becomes operative on January 1, 2012, in which case this act shall also become operative on January 1, 2012.

Editor's Notes- AB 1528 of the 2003-2004 Session was enacted as Stats 2003 ch 672.

The reference in Stats 2007 ch 577 § 27 to Section 5 of ch 577 is set out as enacted. Section 4 of ch 577 amends Gov C § 11126.

Senate Bill 227 was enacted as Stats 2010 ch 31.

Legislative Counsel's Opinions:

Public records-privilege. 1968 AJ 7151.

Law Revision Commission Comment:

2011- Subdivision (u) of Section 6254 is amended to reflect nonsubstantive reorganization of the statutes governing control of deadly weapons.

Subdivision (z) is amended to correct a cross-reference. Subdivision (z) was added to Section 6254 by 1998 Cal. Stat. ch. 110, § 1. Subdivision (z) has not been changed since that time, but the provision cross-referenced in it (Pub. Util. Code § 2891.1) has been repeatedly amended. The material that used to be in paragraph (c)(2) of that provision has been relocated to paragraph (f)(2) of that provision. The cross-reference in subdivision (z) of Section 6254 is now updated to reflect that relocation.

Cross References: Air pollution data, housing code violations, “trade secrets”: Gov C § 6254.7.

Inspection by district attorney of records of licensing complaints and investigations: Gov C § 6262.

Privilege for official information: Ev C § 1040.

Information and records in assessor's office not required by law to be kept or prepared: Rev & Tax C § 408.

Inspection of assessor's records in Los Angeles County: Rev & Tax C § 408.2.

Property statement submitted to assessor by property owner not subject to inspection: Rev & Tax C § 451.

Limitation on right to inspect petition and reports of probation officer in juvenile court proceedings: W & I C § 827.

Collateral References: Cal. Forms Pleading & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 59 “Assemblies, Meetings, And Demonstrations”.

Cal. Forms Pleading & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 81 “Automobiles: Client Interview”.

Cal. Forms Pleading & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 118 “Civil Service”.

Cal. Forms Pleading & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 180 “Dead Bodies And Cemeteries”.

Cal. Forms Pleading & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 190 “Discovery: Scope, Regulation, And Timing”.

Cal. Forms Pleading & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 429 “Privacy”.

Cal. Forms Pleading & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)) ch 470C “Public Records Act”.

Cal. Antitrust and Unfair Comp. Law, ch 23, Public Enforcement of California Antitrust Laws, § 23.08[C].

Cal. Legal Forms, (Matthew Bender(R)) § 27.3.

Cal. Legal Forms, (Matthew Bender(R)) § 27.30.

Cal. Legal Forms, (Matthew Bender(R)) § 90A.30.

Cal. Legal Forms, (Matthew Bender(R)) § 90A.30.

Cal. Torts (Matthew Bender(R)), § 72.27.

Cal. Ins. Law & Practice (Matthew Bender(R)), ch 6, The Regulation of Insurer Investments § 6A.08.

14 Witkin Summary (10th ed) Wills and Probate § 349.

2 Witkin Cal. Evidence (4th ed) Discovery § 228.

2 Witkin Cal. Evidence (4th ed) Witnesses §§ 250--302.

Cal Jur 3d (Rev) Consumer and Borrower Protection Laws § 316; Delinquent and Dependent Children § 205.

Exemptions under federal Freedom of Information Act: 5 USCS § 552(b).

Law Review Articles:

Review of 1994 legislation; interpretive comments. 26 Pacific LJ 688.

A Proposed Amendment to the California Public Records Act: Balancing Privacy and Public Access. 45 Santa Clara LR 127.

Attorney General's Opinions: Availability for public inspection of files of Board of Pilot Commissioners; authority of board to impose requirement that persons wishing to inspect material on file do so only in presence of commissioner or employee of Pilot Commission and only at reasonable hours. 53 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 136.

Confidentiality of certain details and requirement to disclose information in proposed prepaid health plans. 58 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 371.

Derogatory material contained in personnel file of school teacher constituting a public record of confidential nature may not be destroyed by governing board of local school district without complying with provisions of Ed C § 1034; unauthorized destruction constituting violation of Gov C § 6200. 58 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 422.

Ed C § 10751, takes precedence over the California Public Records Act, in prohibiting a school from disclosing the contents of pupils' records. A school district has discretionary authority to disclose pupil records to certain federal, state and local officers but such disclosures, not “required” by state law, would violate 20 USCS § 1232g(b)(1)(E). 58 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 646.

Records of state summary criminal information contained in concealed weapons permit records of a sheriff may not be disclosed to the public. The records of the sheriff's investigation of the qualification and fitness of an applicant for a concealed weapon permit are exempt from public disclosure by Gov C § 6254 (f). The application for and record of a permit for a concealed weapon are open to public inspection unless they contain exceptional information by which the sheriff can demonstrate that the public interest served by not making such records public clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure as provided in Gov C § 6255. 62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 595.

A law enforcement agency may lawfully refuse to furnish a copy of an arrest or complaint report requested by one who has provided information contained in the report; however, the agency must make public certain information contained in such reports. 65 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 563.

Provisions of the California Public Records Act which except certain law enforcement intelligence and investigatory records from public disclosure need not be interpreted to substantially conform with federal court interpretations of similar provisions in the federal Freedom of Information Act. 66 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 272.

Those financial statements requested and received by county from potential bidders for refuse disposal contracts are confidential and are not open to public when they are examined by committee of board of supervisors at meeting subject to the Brown Act. 68 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 16.

Motor carrier records of Department of California Highway Patrol are not exempt from disclosure to general public. 69 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 129.

Phrase “records pertaining to pending litigation” contained subd. (b) of § 6254 of the Public Records Act refers to records of public agency which have specifically been prepared for litigation to which agency is party. Records generated in ordinary course of public agency's business which may be relevant in future litigation to which agency might be party are not exempt from disclosure under subd. (b) before claim is filed with agency or litigation against it commences. Nor do such records become exempt from disclosure under subd. (b) once claim is filed or litigation actually commences. Police records which had to be disclosed under subd. (f) are not exempt from disclosure under subd. (b) if they become relevant in pending litigation to which agency is party. Claim filed against public agency under California's Tort Claims Act is not exempt from disclosure under subd. (b). 71 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 235.

Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of persons who have filed noise complaints concerning operation of city airport are subject to public disclosure unless city can establish in particular circumstances that public interest served by not making information public clearly outweighs public interest served by disclosure. 78 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 103.

The records of intelligence information and security procedures incorporated into the gang reporting, evaluation, and tracking system by law enforcement agencies are not subject to public disclosure under the Public Records Act. 79 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 206.

A sheriff has discretion to furnish copies of photographs of arrested persons, commonly known as “mug shots,” in response to a request from a member of the general public, including the news media; however, once a copy is furnished to one member of the general public, a copy must be made available to all who make a request. 86 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 132.

A copy of a private check that was obtained by the Fair Political Practices Commission through issuance of an administrative subpoena during the investigation of a complaint is exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. 87 Cal. Ops. Atty. Gen. 181.

Parcel boundary map data maintained by a county assessor in an electronic format is subject to public inspection and copying under provisions of the California Public Records Act and must be furnished “promptly” upon request of a member of the public. The fee that may be charged by a county for furnishing a copy of parcel boundary map data is generally limited to the amount that covers the direct cost of producing the copy but may include certain other costs depending upon the particular circumstances as specified in the California Public Records Act. 88 Cal. Ops. Atty. Gen. 153.

Annotations:

What constitutes “trade secrets” exempt from disclosure under state freedom of information act. 27 ALR4th 773.

Privatization of governmental services by state or local governmental agency. 65 ALR5th 1.

What constitutes commercial or financial information, exclusive of trade secrets, exempt from disclosure under state freedom of information acts-General rules of construction. 5 ALR6th 327.

What constitutes commercial or financial information, exclusive of trade secrets, exempt from disclosure under state freedom of information acts-Specific applications. 8 ALR6th 117.

Freedom of Information Act exemption (5 USCS § 552(b)(5)) for inter-agency and intra-agency memorandums or letters as applicable to communications to or from attorneys for the government. 54 ALR Fed 280.

What are interagency or intra-agency memorandums or letters exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)). 168 ALR Fed 143.

What matters are exempt from disclosure under Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)) as “specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy”. 169 ALR Fed 495.

What constitutes “confidential source” within Freedom of Information Act exemption permitting nondisclosure of confidential source and, in some instances, of information furnished by confidential source (5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b)). 171 ALR Fed 193.

Construction and application of FOIA exemption 7(f), 5 U.S.C.A. § 552(b), which permits withholding of information compiled for law enforcement purposes if disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger life or physical safety. 184 ALR Fed 435.

NOTES OF DECISIONS



1. Generally

2. Legislative Intent

3. Construction with Other Law

4. Procedure

5. Police and Correctional Matters

6. Licensing Matters

7. Miscellaneous Matters

8. Records of Complaints

9. Pending Litigation; Discovery

10. Evidentiary Privileges

11. Deliberative Process Exemption

12. Personnel Matters

13. Federal Law

14. Particular Determinations

1. Generally

There are three statutory conditions for exemption from the California Public Records Act, pursuant to Gov C § 6254, subd. (a) (preliminary drafts of agency memoranda not normally retained in the ordinary course of business): the record sought must be a preliminary draft, note, or memorandum; not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business; and the public interest in withholding must clearly outweigh the public interest in disclosure. The purpose of the exemption is to provide a measure of agency privacy for written discourse concerning matters pending administrative action. Citizens for a Better Environment v. Department of Food & Agriculture (1985, Cal App 3d Dist) 171 Cal App 3d 704, 217 Cal Rptr 504, 1985 Cal App LEXIS 2446.

With regard to the “memorandum” exemption to the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), an exemption protects the deliberative materials produced in the process of making agency decisions, but not factual materials, and not agency law. The purpose of the exception is to foster robust discussion within the agency of policy questions attending pending administrative decisions. The means to achieve this is an exemption from disclosure of those portions of predecisional writings containing advisory opinions, recommendations, and policy deliberations. However, memoranda consisting only of compiled factual material or purely factual material contained in deliberative memoranda and severable from its context are not exempt from disclosure. Moreover, the text and context of Gov C § 6254, subd. (a) (exemption from disclosure as to preliminary drafts of agency memoranda not normally retained in ordinary course of business), pursuant to the California Public Records Act, suggest that it has essentially the same purpose as its FOIA cognate. Thus, to the extent permitted by the express statutory language, a reviewing court may properly look to the reasoning of the analogous federal case law in construing Gov C § 6254, subd. (a). Citizens for a Better Environment v. Department of Food & Agriculture (1985, Cal App 3d Dist) 171 Cal App 3d 704, 217 Cal Rptr 504, 1985 Cal App LEXIS 2446.

The Public Records Act (Gov C § 6250 et seq.) contains a number of exemptions from disclosure. Because of the strong public policy in favor of disclosure of public records, such records must be disclosed unless they come within one or more of the categories of documents exempt from compelled disclosure (Gov C § 6254). These exemptions are construed narrowly, and the burden is on the public agency to show that the records should not be disclosed. Rogers v. Superior Court (1993, Cal App 2d Dist) 19 Cal App 4th 469, 23 Cal Rptr 2d 412, 1993 Cal App LEXIS 1028.

2. Legislative Intent

Financial data supplied by a waste disposal company to a city which the city relied on in granting a rate increase to the company pursuant to an exclusive contract between the city and the company for the collection of waste and garbage within the city limits, was not exempt from disclosure under Gov C § 6254, subd. (n), which exempts from disclosure “[s]tatements of personal worth or financial data required by a licensing agency and filed by an applicant with such licensing agency to establish his personal qualifications for the license, certificate, or permit applied for.” The term license within the meaning of § 6254, subd. (n), must be construed narrowly to give effect to the legislative intent that favors disclosure over secrecy in government. If the Legislature had intended a broad exemption to apply to any financial statements then it need not have hinged the exemption to those filing applications for licensing agencies. Although it makes good sense to exempt license applicants, that situation was distinct from the type of contractual relationship that existed between the city and the disposal company. San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983, Cal App 2d Dist) 143 Cal App 3d 762, 192 Cal Rptr 415, 1983 Cal App LEXIS 1811.

Cal Const., Art. I, § 1, guarantees all persons the inalienable right to privacy. Nonetheless, the public and the press have a right to review the government's conduct of its business. The Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, has deemed the public's right of access to information concerning the conduct of public business a fundamental and necessary interest of citizenship. Consequently, in enacting the Public Records Act (Gov C § 6250 et seq.), the Legislature balanced the individual's privacy interest with the right to know about the conduct of public business. The specific exemptions from this general requirement of disclosure, which are listed in Gov C § 6254, are construed narrowly to insure maximum disclosure of the conduct of governmental operations. New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (1990, Cal App 2d Dist) 218 Cal App 3d 1579, 268 Cal Rptr 21, 1990 Cal App LEXIS 282.

Considering the language of Pen C § 832.8(a) as a whole, the legislature did not intend the words “personal data” to carry their broadest possible meaning, encompassing any and all information related to a particular officer, and had the legislature intended Pen C § 832.7 to change the law with respect to disclosure of public salary information, one would expect to see specific language to that effect in the statute because the legislature easily could have added “salary” to the list of personnel records set forth in Pen C § 832.8. The amount of salary paid to a particular individual provides information concerning the governmental agency in which the public has a legitimate and traditionally recognized interest. International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007, Cal) 42 Cal 4th 319, 64 Cal Rptr 3d 693, 165 P 3d 488, 2007 Cal LEXIS 8918.

3. Construction with Other Law

The doctrine of equal protection did not require release of the records of a sheriff's department investigation of a shooting incident involving several juveniles to the mother of one of the minors for her use in a civil action arising out of the incident without the necessity of her obtaining a juvenile court order for inspection of such records as required by Welf. & Inst. Code, § 827. The promotion of the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile law provides more than a valid reason to require the confidentiality of juvenile records under the statute, which provides a simple procedure (petition for a court order) under which the mother could obtain the report but yet protect the other minors involved. Wescott v. County of Yuba (1980, Cal App 3d Dist) 104 Cal App 3d 103, 163 Cal Rptr 385, 1980 Cal App LEXIS 1657.

Gov C § 6254, subd. (b) is not redundant of subdivision (k), through which CCP § 2018 (repealed) applies and protects attorney work product, but rather subdivision (b) confers upon public agencies a broader exemption from disclosure by protecting the “work product” generated by a public agency in anticipation of litigation. Nor is it redundant of the attorney-client privilege codified in Ev C § 950 et seq. and made applicable to the CPRA through subdivision (k) of Gov C § 6254. Gov C § 6254, subd. (b), refers to litigation records generally, while subdivision (k) specifically refers to matters of privilege, including the attorney-client privilege. Fairley v. Superior Court (1998, Cal App 2d Dist) 66 Cal App 4th 1414, 78 Cal Rptr 2d 648, 1998 Cal App LEXIS 823, rehearing denied (1998, Cal App 2d Dist) 67 Cal App 4th 730a, 1998 Cal App LEXIS 873.

Gov C § 6254, subd. (b) is not redundant of subdivision (k), through which CCP § 2018 (repealed) applies and protects attorney work product, but rather subdivision (b) confers upon public agencies a broader exemption from disclosure by protecting the “work product” generated by a public agency in anticipation of litigation. Nor is it redundant of the attorney-client privilege codified in Ev C § 950 et seq. and made applicable to the CPRA through subdivision (k) of Gov C § 6254. Gov C § 6254, subd. (b), refers to litigation records generally, while subdivision (k) specifically refers to matters of privilege, including the attorney-client privilege. Fairley v. Superior Court (1998, Cal App 2d Dist) 66 Cal App 4th 1414, 78 Cal Rptr 2d 648, 1998 Cal App LEXIS 823, rehearing denied (1998, Cal App 2d Dist) 67 Cal App 4th 730a, 1998 Cal App LEXIS 873.

Because an insurer was not entitled to invoke the trade secret privilege under Ev C § 1060 to prevent the disclosure of its Record A data under Ins. Code § 1861.07, given that the statute did not incorporate the exemption from disclosure found in Gov C § 6254(k), the appellate court properly affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the state insurance commissioner and two organizations. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (2004) 32 Cal 4th 1029, 12 Cal Rptr 3d 343, 88 P3d 71, 2004 Cal LEXIS 3616.

Exemptions listed in Ins. Code § 1861.07 are meant to be examples, rather than an exhaustive listing of all those statutory exemptions that are inapplicable, and by giving the public access to all information provided to the California Insurance Commissioner pursuant to Ins. Code art. 10, Ins. Code §§ 1861.01-1861.14, the court's construction of Ins. Code § 1861.07 is consistent with Cal. Proposition 103's goal of fostering consumer participation in the rate-setting process; the language of Ins. Code § 1861.07 requires public disclosure of Record A data under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 10, § 2646.6(b), and the fact that insurers can invoke the trade secret privilege pursuant to Ins. Code § 1861.08 does not dictate a different result, and the court concludes that Ins. Code § 1861.07 does not incorporate the exemption to disclosure found in Gov C § 6254(k) and trade secret information in therefore not exempt from disclosure. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Garamendi (2004) 32 Cal 4th 1029, 12 Cal Rptr 3d 343, 88 P3d 71, 2004 Cal LEXIS 3616.

Only information subject to Pen C § 832.7 and incorporated into Gov C § 6254(k) of the California Public Records Act (CPRA) is the written material maintained in the peace officer's personnel file or oral testimony that is a recitation from material in that file, and testimony of a percipient witness to events, or from documents not maintained in the personnel file, is not information subject to Pen C § 832.7 even though that information may be identical to or duplicative of information in the personnel file; thus, Gov C § 6254(k) does not exempt from the required disclosures under the CPRA information relating to a disciplinary appeal from sources other than the peace officer's personnel file. The Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004, Cal App 4th Dist) 122 Cal App 4th 489, 18 Cal Rptr 3d 657, 2004 Cal App LEXIS 1553, rev'd Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal 4th 1272, 48 Cal Rptr 3d 183, 141 P3d 288, 2006 Cal LEXIS 10229.

Because records of appeal of a county civil service commission (CSC) that were not documents from a personnel file or recited from documents in a personnel file were outside the definitional limitations applicable to Pen C § 832.7, a California Public Records Act (CPRA) request for those records by a company could not be denied under Gov C § 6254(k)'s exemption, and the exemption under § 6254(c) could not be invoked to shield the record of the appeal hearing unless that information was within the limitation of Pen C § 832.8, and although information from an appeal proceeding could be added to an officer's file, the records themselves did not become personnel files under § 832.8; the court noted that the CPRA still permitted the CSC to withhold records, if warranted, pursuant to Gov C § 6255, the CSC erred in denying the company's request under Gov C § 6254, and the court granted the company's writ petition insofar as it sought the release of a peace officer's identity and other information, redacted to exclude information within Pen C §§ 832.7, 832.8. The Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2004, Cal App 4th Dist) 122 Cal App 4th 489, 18 Cal Rptr 3d 657, 2004 Cal App LEXIS 1553, rev'd Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal 4th 1272, 48 Cal Rptr 3d 183, 141 P3d 288, 2006 Cal LEXIS 10229.

Publisher could not obtain disciplinary records that included a peace officer's name because the county civil service commission's records of an appeal hearing were exempt from disclosure under Gov C § 6254(k); the records were deemed confidential files of the employing agency within the meaning of Pen C §§ 832.5, 832.8, a peace officer's identity is confidential under Pen C § 832.7, and the application of § 832.7 is not limited to criminal and civil proceedings, Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal 4th 1272, 48 Cal Rptr 3d 183, 141 P3d 288, 2006 Cal LEXIS 10229.

Pen C §§ 832.7 and 832.8 do not mandate that city payroll records reflecting peace officer salary information be excluded from disclosure merely because some of the facts relied upon in determining the amount of salary may be recorded in the agency's personnel files. International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007, Cal) 42 Cal 4th 319, 64 Cal Rptr 3d 693, 165 P 3d 488, 2007 Cal LEXIS 8918.

Term “records relating” to the kinds of information specified in Pen C § 832.8 is more reasonably understood as a reference to records that actually reflect the enumerated items, and records of salary expenditures do not reflect any of the items enumerated in the statute. Thus, Pen C §§ 832.7 and 832.8 do not mandate that peace officer salary information be excluded from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, Gov C § 6250 et seq.International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007, Cal) 42 Cal 4th 319, 64 Cal Rptr 3d 693, 165 P 3d 488, 2007 Cal LEXIS 8918.

Additional information briefly discussing prehistoric Native American artifacts did not require recirculation of a draft environmental impact report under Pub Res C §§ 21092.1, 21166 because the changes were not significant in light of disclosure restrictions in Gov C § 6254(r), Pub Res C §§ 5097.9, 5097.993, and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15120(d). Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011, 3d Dist) 2011 Cal App LEXIS 884.

4. Procedure

In actions seeking reimbursement from the State of California and the California Highway Patrol for allegedly illegal charges made for copies of traffic accident reports and an injunction against such practice, the trial court properly sustained defendants' demurrers, where, though the reports were public records within the meaning of Gov C § 6252, subd. (d), and thus subject to the limitation of former Gov C § 6257 (see now Gov C § 6253), as to charges for copies, the complaints failed to allege that plaintiffs were persons entitled, under Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), and Veh C § 20012, to such otherwise confidential information. However, the court should have granted plaintiffs leave to amend to allege such entitlement if the facts permitted. Vallejos v. California Highway Patrol (1979, Cal App 2d Dist) 89 Cal App 3d 781, 152 Cal Rptr 846, 1979 Cal App LEXIS 1424.

5. Police and Correctional Matters

In seeking to avoid excessive and therefore prejudicial publicity in a pending prosecution, the trial court's order that copies of the transcript of the grand jury proceedings in possession of the clerk remain sealed and which restricted and limited the disclosure of the transcript contents by the clerk and district attorney to unauthorized personnel, specifically newspapers, was unreasonable, where the effect of the order was to permanently deny the right of public inspection of the grand jury records in question. Craemer v. Superior Court of Marin County (1968, Cal App 1st Dist) 265 Cal App 2d 216, 71 Cal Rptr 193, 1968 Cal App LEXIS 1617.

In keeping with a trial judge's duty to insure that a defendant will receive a fair trial the judge may, in order to prevent even the probability of unfairness, make such orders as are reasonably designed to avert improper prejudice to indicted defendants, and, accordingly, a proper order can require that grand jury transcripts not be disclosed to any person (other than those specifically mentioned in Pen C § 938.1) until a specified reasonable period of time after a copy thereof has been delivered to the defendant, provided that if the defendant, during such time, shall move the court that such transcript, or any portion thereof, not be available for public inspection pending trial, such time shall be extended subject to the court's ruling on such motion. Craemer v. Superior Court of Marin County (1968, Cal App 1st Dist) 265 Cal App 2d 216, 71 Cal Rptr 193, 1968 Cal App LEXIS 1617.

Gov C § 6254, subd (f), exempting from disclosure records used for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes, applies only when the prospect of enforcement proceedings is concrete and definite; the exemption does not apply when an agency merely labels its file “investigatory” and suggests that enforcement proceedings may be initiated at some unspecified future date or were previously considered. Uribe v. Howie (1971, Cal App 4th Dist) 19 Cal App 3d 194, 96 Cal Rptr 493, 1971 Cal App LEXIS 1271.

Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), exempting from disclosure all public files compiled for law enforcement purposes, was not applicable to files maintained by the Division of Industrial Safety which were the subject of a discovery order in personal injury and wrongful death actions arising out of the collapse of a bridge under construction. While the Division of Industrial Safety does make investigations in the course of enforcement of certain aspects of the California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, and undoubtedly compiles files of its investigations, all of such files are not necessarily files compiled for “law enforcement purposes” within the meaning of the subdivision. The adjective “law enforcement,” as used in the subdivision, refers to law enforcement in the traditional sense, that is, to the enforcement of penal statutes, etc., and unless there is a concrete and definite prospect of such criminal law enforcement, the subdivision does not apply. Furthermore, the terms “law enforcement” and “investigatory files” would not be given the same interpretations those terms have been given in the regulations of the United States Department of Labor, since the interpretations reflect the point of view of the agency and have not been approved by the federal courts. State of California ex rel. Division of Industrail Safety v. Superior Court (1974, Cal App 2d Dist) 43 Cal App 3d 778, 117 Cal Rptr 726, 1974 Cal App LEXIS 1355.

The Public Records Act which establishes a general right of public access to governmental documents does not authorize persons with arrest records to have access to state arrest record information furnished to a city by the Attorney General and Department of Justice, since certain documents in the possession of a municipality are expressly exempt from disclosure under Gov C § 6254 including records of intelligence information or security procedures of the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, or any such investigatory or security files compiled for correctional or law enforcement purposes. Furthermore, Pen C §§ 11120-11127, dealing with the access of private individuals to their arrest records, are special legislation and they take precedence over any general legislation such as the Public Records Act. Younger v. Berkeley City Council (1975, Cal App 1st Dist) 45 Cal App 3d 825, 119 Cal Rptr 830, 1975 Cal App LEXIS 1734.

A church's verified complaint to require disclosure of any records a police department maintained of its activities, and its declarations and documents filed in support of its motion for temporary injunction, which was denied, clearly established that the records sought, if they in fact existed, were of the type embraced in Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), exempt as records of “intelligence information,” where the complaint referred repeatedly to “information, documents, reports and records” allegedly maintained by the police department relating to the church, where, in oral argument on the motion for preliminary injunction, the church's attorney admitted that “the statutory intent relating to intelligence files and relating to investigatory files is that they are exempt,” and where it was plain that the records of “intelligence information” requested fell within the ambit of the exemption. Los Angeles Police Dept. v. Superior Court (1977, Cal App 2d Dist) 65 Cal App 3d 661, 135 Cal Rptr 575, 1977 Cal App LEXIS 1076.

Interrogatories that seek information about records exempt from public disclosure, either as “intelligence information” exempt under Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), or as exempt in the public interest, are not permitted. Ancillary discovery through written interrogatories is not permissible to determine whether “intelligence information” has been gathered by police intelligence divisions, whether a file is maintained therefore, or the names and titles of persons who might have reviewed the file. Los Angeles Police Dept. v. Superior Court (1977, Cal App 2d Dist) 65 Cal App 3d 661, 135 Cal Rptr 575, 1977 Cal App LEXIS 1076.

Disclosure of a public entity's investigatory or security records is not prohibited under Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), unless the agency itself asserts a privilege under that section. Thus, police department employees were not entitled to an injunction prohibiting disclosure of records by the police chief to a citizens' review commission on the basis of privilege under Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), where it did not appear that the city or the department had asserted any privilege of nondisclosure. Berkeley Police Assn. v. City of Berkeley (1977, Cal App 1st Dist) 76 Cal App 3d 931, 143 Cal Rptr 255, 1977 Cal App LEXIS 2128.

In an action under the Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.), to compel the disclosure of various documents utilized by the California Highway Patrol in training its officers, the trial court properly exempted from disclosure matters dealing with security and safety procedures of the highway patrol in the performance of its police function (Gov C § 6254, subd. (f) (exemption for specified police records). Northern Cal. Police Practices Project v. Craig (1979, Cal App 3d Dist) 90 Cal App 3d 116, 153 Cal Rptr 173, 1979 Cal App LEXIS 1457.

Personal identifiers contained in certain law enforcement documents where not exempt from disclosure under Gov C § 6254, subd. (c), since the exemption from disclosure provided by such subdivision is confined to “personnel, medical, or similar files.” However, they were exempt under a similar exemption for personal identifiers which was read into the “intelligence information” exemption from disclosure provided by Gov C § 6254, subd. (f). American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian (1982) 32 Cal 3d 440, 186 Cal Rptr 235, 651 P2d 822, 1982 Cal LEXIS 229.

In an action under the Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.) to compel disclosure of certain index cards compiled by law enforcement departments which listed organized crime suspects, the trial court erred in concluding the exemption from disclosure accorded intelligence information (Gov C § 6254, subd. (f)) was confined to personal identifiers and information which might reveal confidential sources. While not exempting all information reasonably related to criminal activity, the “intelligence information” exemption also bars the disclosure of information supplied in confidence, even if such information does not reveal the identity of a confidential source. Further, the exclusion of personal identifiers includes information from which the identity of the individual in question might be inferred. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian (1982) 32 Cal 3d 440, 186 Cal Rptr 235, 651 P2d 822, 1982 Cal LEXIS 229.

In invoking the Public Record Act's exemption from disclosure accorded investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes (Gov C § 6254, (f)), the requirement that the information sought relate to a definite prospect of enforcement proceedings is applicable only to information which is not itself exempt from compelled disclosure, but claims exemption only as part of an investigatory file. Information independently exempt, such as intelligence information, is not subject to the requirement that it relate to a definite prospect of enforcement proceedings. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian (1982) 32 Cal 3d 440, 186 Cal Rptr 235, 651 P2d 822, 1982 Cal LEXIS 229.

A sheriff's investigation report undertaken at the county's instance to determine the validity of a jail inmate's tort liability claim based on a jailhouse assault was not protected from disclosure by Gov C § 6254, subd. (f) (California Public Records Act), which exempts from disclosure records of complaints or investigations conducted for correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes. Even if the sheriff's report had law enforcement implications, the exemption is applicable only when the prospect of law enforcement is “concrete and definite.” Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. County of Orange (1984, Cal App 4th Dist) 158 Cal App 3d 893, 205 Cal Rptr 92, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 2371.

Under the California Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6500 et seq.), exemptions from disclosure of records of complaints or investigations conducted for correctional or law enforcement purposes (Gov C § 6254, subd. (f)) are permissive, not mandatory. Thus, it did not forbid disclosure of investigation reports of an assault on a jail inmate undertaken in connection with a tort claim, and, since disclosure was not forbidden by state law, the absolute privilege of Evi C § 1040, subd. (b)(1), granting governmental entities a privilege against disclosure of information if disclosure is forbidden by a federal or state statute, was not applicable in an action by a newspaper against the county for disclosure of the reports. Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. County of Orange (1984, Cal App 4th Dist) 158 Cal App 3d 893, 205 Cal Rptr 92, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 2371.

Under Gov C § 6254, subd. (f)(2), which provides an exemption from disclosure for “[r]ecords of complaints to or investigations conducted by any state or local police agency,” a city had a duty to provide information contained in a police report to the public, notwithstanding the report was not the result of a formal, written complaint made by a citizen to the police department, but rather was the result of an independent police investigation. By its terms, § 6254, subd. (f)(2), requires disclosure of information in investigatory files “to the extent such information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded.” The investigation by police was recorded. Therefore, the statute required disclosure of specific information about the investigation. If the language of § 6254, subd. (f)(2), is in any way ambiguous, it should be resolved in favor of the legislative intent of the California Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.) to maximize disclosure of the conduct of governmental operations. South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (1984, Cal App 4th Dist) 160 Cal App 3d 261, 206 Cal Rptr 527, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 2539.

The 1982 amendments to Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), which exempts from disclosure records of complaints to or investigations conducted by any state or local police agency, enacted as subds. (1) and (2) of § 6254, subd. (f), did not so significantly alter the statute that its federal counterpart, 5 USCS § 552(b)(7), is no longer an appropriate guide to its construction. The effect of these amendments was simply to extend public access to information contained in agency records which are themselves exempt from disclosure by § 6254, subd. (f). The amendments are in keeping with the original, shared purpose of the California Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.) and the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 USCS § 552) to provide public access to government information. South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (1984, Cal App 4th Dist) 160 Cal App 3d 261, 206 Cal Rptr 527, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 2539.

In a declaratory relief action by a newspaper seeking to inspect or obtain a copy of a police report of an investigation of a high school principal for his alleged failure to report an incident of child abuse, the trial court erred in ruling that the report was absolutely privileged under Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), which exempts from disclosure records of complaints to or investigations by any state or local police agency. Under the California Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.), the newspaper was entitled to a copy of the report if no confidential sources would be revealed, disclosure would not interfere with enforcement proceedings, no person would be deprived of a fair trial, release of the report would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, secret police investigative techniques or procedures would not be revealed, and the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel would not be endangered. Accordingly, the trial court was required to conduct an in camera inspection and to release the report or parts thereof, or an accurate edited summary, unless the court found disclosure would result in an invasion of statutorily protected areas of information. South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (1984, Cal App 4th Dist) 160 Cal App 3d 261, 206 Cal Rptr 527, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 2539.

The purpose of the exemption under the California Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.) regarding police records, as originally enacted, was to allow the law enforcement agency to develop a discretionary policy for disclosure of such records. The addition in 1982 of Gov C § 6254, subd. (f)(1), and Gov C § 6254, subd. (f)(2), specifying information contained within such reports that must be disclosed, had the effect of extending public access to information contained in agency records themselves exempted from disclosure by Gov C § 6254, subd. (f). City of Santa Rosa v. Press Democrat (1986, Cal App 1st Dist) 187 Cal App 3d 1315, 232 Cal Rptr 445, 1986 Cal App LEXIS 2341.

On appeal from a judgment ordering a county sheriff to partially disclose to a newspaper records of disciplinary proceedings against two deputies, the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the exemption from disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Gov C § 6250 et seq.) for law enforcement investigatory records (Gov C § 6254, subd. (f)) was limited by the criteria set forth in the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 USCS § 552). In drafting Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), the Legislature expressly imposed several precise limitations on the confidentiality of law enforcement investigatory records. Clearly, the Legislature was capable of articulating additional limitations if that is what it intended to do. Further, the Legislature has already enacted appropriate statutory provisions, as part of the California Public Records Act, to address the concerns articulated in the Freedom of Information Act criteria. Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal 4th 337, 19 Cal Rptr 2d 882, 852 P2d 377, 1993 Cal LEXIS 2500.

The California Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.) is not properly interpreted as giving the custodian of law enforcement records unreviewable power to decide whether Gov C § 6254, subd. (f) (information subject to disclosure from records of complaints to or investigations by law enforcement agencies), requires the disclosure of particular items of information from such records. While Gov C § 6259, expressly mentions only the court's power to order the public official to make the record itself public (Gov C § 6254, subd. (b)), that greater power necessarily includes the lesser. Otherwise, the statutory right of access to information from law enforcement records would be meaningless. Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal 4th 337, 19 Cal Rptr 2d 882, 852 P2d 377, 1993 Cal LEXIS 2500.

On appeal from a judgment ordering a county sheriff to partially disclose to a newspaper records of disciplinary proceedings against two deputies, the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that such records remain exempt only so long as they continue to relate to a “pending” investigation. The exemption for law enforcement investigatory files (Gov C § 6254, subd. (f)) does not terminate with the conclusion of the investigation. Once an investigation has come into being because there is a concrete and definite prospect of enforcement proceedings at that time, materials that relate to the investigation and, thus, properly belong in the file remain subject to the terms of the statute. Williams v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal 4th 337, 19 Cal Rptr 2d 882, 852 P2d 377, 1993 Cal LEXIS 2500.

In a mandate proceeding by a newspaper, the trial court erred in ordering disclosure to plaintiff of records of an internal investigation conducted by a city police department into the actions of a police sergeant (focusing on whether he had improperly used city property, investigated drug use on county property while on duty as a city officer, or used his police status to obtain confidential information from a school). Gov C § 6254, subd. (k), provides that disclosure is not required for public records the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including the Evidence Code privileges. Pen C § 832.7, subd. (a), provides that peace officer personnel records and records of citizen complaints against law enforcement personnel are confidential and may not be disclosed except by discovery pursuant to Evi C §§ 1043 and 1046. The confidentiality provided by these more specific provisions would be illusory unless incorporated into the California Public Records Act through Gov C § 6254, subd. (k). City of Hemet v. Superior Court (1995, Cal App 4th Dist) 37 Cal App 4th 1411, 44 Cal Rptr 2d 532, 1995 Cal App LEXIS 824, rehearing denied (1995, Cal App 4th Dist) 1995 Cal App LEXIS 906, review denied City of Hemet v. Riverside County Superior Court (1995, Cal) 1995 Cal LEXIS 6986.

Amendment to Gov C § 6254(f)(3) (prohibiting release of arrestee addresses only to people who intend to use those addresses for commercial purposes, while allowing release to other people who intend to use the addresses for scholarly, journalistic, political, governmental, or investigative purposes) is an impermissible restriction on commercial speech which violates the First Amendment. United Reporting Publ'g Corp. v. Lungren (1996, SD Cal) 946 F Supp 822, 1996 US Dist LEXIS 17756, aff'd United Reporting Publ'g Corp. v. California Highway Patrol (1998, CA9 Cal) 146 F3d 1133, 1998 US App LEXIS 13549.

Where a person from a minority, seeking all documents relating to any internal investigation and a deputy sheriff's personnel file, filed suit against a county for violations of his civil rights and state law by the deputy, the county could not successfully object to the requested discovery upon the grounds internal investigation reports were protected by Gov C § 6254, Pen C §§ 832 et seq., and Ev C §§ 1040 and 1043 and that disclosure would infringe the deputy because the county failed to demonstrate any statutory or other privacy bar to disclosure of the requested information. Jackson v. County of Sacramento (1997, ED Cal) 175 FRD 653, 1997 US Dist LEXIS 14615.

The court reversed a judgment for respondent publishing company which provided the names and addresses of recently arrested individuals to its customers, who included attorneys, insurance companies, drug and alcohol counselors, and driving schools. It received this information from petitioner and other California state and local law enforcement agencies until the State amended Gov C § 6254(f)(3) to require that a person requesting an arrestee's address declare that the request is being made for one of five prescribed purposes and that the address will not be used directly or indirectly to sell a product or service. Respondent was not entitled to prevail on a “facial attack” on the statute. At least for the purposes of facial invalidation, the statute was not an abridgment of anyone's right to engage in speech, but simply a law regulating access to information in the government's hands. The government was not prohibiting a speaker from conveying information that the speaker already possessed. California law merely required respondent to qualify under the statute if it wished to obtain arrestees' addresses. California could decide not to give out arrestee information at all without violating the First Amendment. Los Angeles Police Dep't v. United Reporting Publ'g Corp. (1999) 528 US 32, 145 L Ed 2d 451, 120 S Ct 483, 1999 US LEXIS 8239.

The exemption from disclosure for “records of investigation” by local police agencies (Gov C § 6254(f)), as distinct from “investigatory files,” was not subject to the qualification that the prospect of enforcement proceedings be concrete and definite. Records of investigation, no less than records of complaints and intelligence information, were exempt on their face, whether or not they were ever included in an investigatory file. Limiting the § 6254(f) exemption only to records of investigation where the likelihood of enforcement had ripened into something concrete and definite would expose to the public the very sensitive investigative stages of determining whether a crime had been committed or who had committed it. However, the records of investigation exemption under § 6254(f) encompassed only those investigations undertaken for the purpose of determining whether a violation of law might occur or had occurred. If a violation or potential violation had been detected, the exemption also extended to records of investigations conducted for the purpose of uncovering information surrounding the commission of the violation and its agency. Here, the investigation that included a deputy sheriff's decision to stop a motorist and the stop itself were for the purpose of discovering whether a violation of law had occurred and, if so, the circumstances of its commission. Records relating to that investigation were exempt from disclosure by § 6254(f). Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal 4th 1061, 112 Cal Rptr 2d 80, 31 P3d 760, 2001 Cal LEXIS 6478.

A television network's request for disclosure of the identity of every individual granted a criminal conviction exemption to work in a licensed daycare facility and the identity of each facility employing such individuals was a proper request under the Public Records Act (Gov C § 6250). The state's disclosure in detail of how it operated the exemption process did not satisfy the statutory directive that the public have access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business. Further, nondisclosure was not compelled under the personnel records exemption (Gov C § 6254(c)), or by Pen C §§ 11105, 11142, which would thereby serve as an underlying basis for nondisclosure under § 6254(k). The network was not seeking information about the convictions suffered by the individuals at issue or any other privileged information. In any event, the fact that an individual suffered a criminal conviction was a matter of public record. Nor was nondisclosure compelled by reason of the “catchall” provision of Gov C § 6255, since the state, which did not set forth any protectable privacy interest of a licensed child care facility which would justify nondisclosure of its identity as a facility which employed an individual who had been granted a criminal conviction exemption, failed to carry its burden. Additionally, to the extent the individuals had any privacy interest in nondisclosure, they subjected themselves to public review by virtue of applying for a license to work at, operate, or own a child care facility. CBS Broadcasting Inc. v. Superior Court (2001, Cal App 2d Dist) 91 Cal App 4th 892, 110 Cal Rptr 2d 889, 2001 Cal App LEXIS 654.

Undisclosed letter directly related to a definite and concrete investigation of an officer and it had no purpose other than to report the deputy DA's thoughts, opinions, and conclusions; thus, the letter was exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, Gov C § 6250 et seq., pursuant to the investigation exemption in Gov C § 6254(f). Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002, Cal App 4th Dist) 104 Cal App 4th 169, 128 Cal Rptr 2d 234, 2002 Cal App LEXIS 5114.

Although authorized by the California Public Records Act, Gov C § 6250 et seq., under Gov C § 6259, the newspaper never asked the trial court to conduct an in camera review to determine whether the nonpublic letter about the investigation of a police officer had been improperly withheld; thus, the appellate court considered the investigators' declarations to sufficiently establish that the letter actually related to the investigation and fells within the investigation exemption contained in Gov C § 6254(f). Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002, Cal App 4th Dist) 104 Cal App 4th 169, 128 Cal Rptr 2d 234, 2002 Cal App LEXIS 5114.

District attorney did not waive the investigation exemption in Gov C § 6254(f) by providing a nonpublic letter to the police department, which initiated the criminal investigation and employed the officer, as the district attorney did so with the understanding that the document would remain confidential. Rackauckas v. Superior Court (2002, Cal App 4th Dist) 104 Cal App 4th 169, 128 Cal Rptr 2d 234, 2002 Cal App LEXIS 5114.

Regarding police officers' personnel files, urinalysis test results contained in police investigative files and the files of a district attorney are not subject to disclosure under the Gov C § 6254(f) of the California Public Records Act, Gov C § 6250 et seq.Fagan v. Superior Court (2003, Cal App 1st Dist) 111 Cal App 4th 607, 4 Cal Rptr 3d 239, 2003 Cal App LEXIS 1288.

Letters in a district attorney's investigation file were exempt from disclosure under Gov C §§ 6254, 6254.5. County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2005, Cal App 2d Dist) 130 Cal App 4th 1099, 30 Cal Rptr 3d 708, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 1039, review denied County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Superior Court (2005, Cal) 2005 Cal LEXIS 10348.

Coroner and autopsy reports that constitute investigations of a suspected homicide death, in which the prospect of criminal law enforcement proceedings is concrete and definite, are public records that are exempt from disclosure under Gov C § 6254(f). Dixon v. Superior Court (2009, 3d Dist) 170 Cal App 4th 1271, 88 Cal Rptr 3d 847, 2009 Cal App LEXIS 145, review denied Dixon (Kathryn J.) v. S.C. (Neves) (2009, Cal.) 2009 Cal. LEXIS 4729.

Disclosure of coroner and autopsy reports was properly denied under the investigatory file exemption of Gov C § 6254(f) because substantial evidence supported a factual finding that the reports were investigatory files of a local agency for law enforcement purposes that involved a definite prospect of criminal law enforcement; reports investigated the death of a person left in an open field with multiple bullet wounds, and that death led to a criminal trial for murder, and it was irrelevant that the party requesting the public records was a reporter. Dixon v. Superior Court (2009, 3d Dist) 170 Cal App 4th 1271, 88 Cal Rptr 3d 847, 2009 Cal App LEXIS 145, review denied Dixon (Kathryn J.) v. S.C. (Neves) (2009, Cal.) 2009 Cal. LEXIS 4729.

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) should not have been ordered to disclose investigative materials underlying a report relating to a parolee who kidnapped a young girl and held her for 18 years because Pen C § 6131 gave the Inspector General complete discretion as to disclosure of those material. Further, the exemption from disclosure in Gov C § 6254(f), applied because OIG launched its investigation into supervision of the parolee by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to determine whether CDCR's parole policies were adequate and whether they were followed in this instance; thus, the prospect of enforcement proceedings was concrete and definite when the investigation was launched. Office of the Inspector Gen. v. Superior Court (2010, 3d Dist) 189 Cal App 4th 695, 117 Cal Rptr 3d 388, 2010 Cal App LEXIS 1848.

Good cause requirement of CCP § 1985 was inapplicable to a subpoena duces tecum issued by a grand jury to a police department because the investigation was not a civil proceeding. The records were not confidential under Pen C § 832.7 or exempt from disclosure under Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), because they were sought pursuant to the grand jury's authority under Pen C §§ 925, 925a. City of Woodlake v. Tulare County Grand Jury (2011, 5th Dist) 2011 Cal App LEXIS 994.

6. Licensing Matters

Monthly pesticide spray reports submitted in accordance with Fd & Ag C § 11733, to a county agricultural commissioner, each containing the name of the operator, the location and owners of the lands to which pesticides were applied, the chemical combinations, quantities, concentrations, and dates of such applications, and the crops and pests involved, were not “crop reports” within the meaning of the disclosure exemption provisions of Gov C § 6254, where the reports did not yield information concerning the magnitude of the crops sprayed, their state of preparation, or their likely marketing dates, and could not affect the privacy of either the growers' or applicators' financial dealings, nor affect prices in commodity markets. Uribe v. Howie (1971, Cal App 4th Dist) 19 Cal App 3d 194, 96 Cal Rptr 493, 1971 Cal App LEXIS 1271.

Monthly pesticide spray reports submitted in accordance with Fd & Ag C § 11733, to a county agricultural commissioner, each containing the name of the operator, the location and owners of the lands to which pesticides were applied, the chemical combinations, quantities, concentrations, and dates of such applications, and the crops and pests involved, could not, in an action seeking public disclosure of such reports, be validly deemed to be records used for “correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes” within the meaning of the disclosure exemption provisions of Gov C § 6254, subd (f), where, although pesticide spray reports had been used to review applicators' licenses on various occasions, this was not the primary purpose for which they were compiled, and where there was no evidence that any of the reports were being put to such purpose at the time of trial. Uribe v. Howie (1971, Cal App 4th Dist) 19 Cal App 3d 194, 96 Cal Rptr 493, 1971 Cal App LEXIS 1271.

In a proceeding under the Public Records Act for the disclosure of certain documents from a county transportation authority regarding a licensing agreement for the installation of automated public toilets and the award of advertising space to the successful bidder, the trial court erred in finding that the attorney-client privilege was waived (Gov C § 6254(k); Ev C §§ 912, 952), where the documents at issue were prepared by counsel for the successful bidder and were circulated between two parties bound by an offer and acceptance in contemplation of a binding, detailed license agreement. STI Outdoor v. Superior Court (2001, Cal App 2d Dist) 91 Cal App 4th 334, 109 Cal Rptr 2d 865, 2001 Cal App LEXIS 615, review denied STI Outdoor v. Los Angeles County Superior Court (2001, Cal) 2001 Cal LEXIS 7398.

7. Miscellaneous Matters

In a proceeding for appointment of a guardian of a minor child committed to the care of the welfare department and placed in a foster home for adoption, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the welfare department to answer interrogatories as to the identity of persons having custody of the child following commitment and other particulars concerning the activities of the department in connection with attempts to arrange adoptive placement for the child, where the information concerning the placement and adoption of the child was acquired in confidence by the department and its employees in the course of their duties, and was not open or officially disclosed to the public prior to the time a claim of privilege was made, and where no preliminary basis had been established for finding that the adoption procedure was not running its proper course, and that the agency was unfit to have temporary custody of the child, or that it was improbable that the child would be adopted; while there is no absolute statutory ban on disclosure of such information, nor any absolute privilege with respect thereto, Ev C § 1040, requires a weighing of necessity for preserving confidentiality with the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice. Terzian v. Superior Court (1970, Cal App 1st Dist) 10 Cal App 3d 286, 88 Cal Rptr 806, 1970 Cal App LEXIS 1841.

Gov C § 6254, exempting crop reports from public disclosure, applies only to reports specifying the nature, extent, type, or magnitude of crops being grown, disclosure of which might adversely affect the confidentiality of growers' enterprises and interfere with trading in futures on commodity markets. Uribe v. Howie (1971, Cal App 4th Dist) 19 Cal App 3d 194, 96 Cal Rptr 493, 1971 Cal App LEXIS 1271.

The trial court properly denied issuance of a writ of mandate to compel a county assessor to permit a corporation to inspect documents and records enabling it to more easily compare market values of real property with assessed values. Though the documents are the working papers used by the assessor in the performance of his duties, there is no provision requiring him to prepare and keep them and they therefore fall within the purview of Rev & Tax C § 408, providing “ any information and records in the assessor's office which are not required by law to be kept and prepared by the assessor are not public documents and shall not be open to public inspection.” Statewide Homeowners, Inc. v. Williams (1973, Cal App 4th Dist) 30 Cal App 3d 567, 106 Cal Rptr 479, 1973 Cal App LEXIS 1187.

Medical records of a tort claimant appended to a letter sent to a county requesting settlement of the claim were not exempt from disclosure under Gov C § 6254, subd. (c) (California Public Records Act), intended to protect information of a highly personal nature on file with a public agency. By making the claim, the claimant placed his alleged physical injuries and medical records substantiating them in issue and tacitly waived any expectation of privacy regarding the medical records. Because the county utilized the supporting medical records in arriving at its decision to settle the claim, it could not hide behind the claimant's privacy to justify its concealment of the records from public scrutiny. Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. County of Orange (1984, Cal App 4th Dist) 158 Cal App 3d 893, 205 Cal Rptr 92, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 2371.

The Governor's daily, weekly, and monthly appointment calendars were not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act by Gov C § 6254, subd. (1), exempting from disclosure correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor's office. For purposes of the act, the correspondence exemption must be confined to communications by letter, and the Governor's appointment calendars and schedules did not meet that definition. Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal 3d 1325, 283 Cal Rptr 893, 813 P2d 240, 1991 Cal LEXIS 3059.

In an action brought under the California Public Records Act (Gov C § 6250 et seq.) by a private organization to compel the Governor to disclose the names and qualifications of applicants for a temporary appointment to a local board of supervisors, the letters and application forms received by the Governor's Office from applicants for appointment to the vacant supervisor position constituted “[c]orrespondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor's office” within the meaning of Gov C § 6254, subd. (l ). The correspondence exemption was intended to protect communications to the Governor and members of the Governor's staff from correspondents outside of government. The application forms from private citizens, like formal letters and other mail from citizens, did not become public records until received by the Governor's Office. Gov C § 6254 permits the Governor to receive such communications in confidence. California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court (1998, Cal App 3d Dist) 67 Cal App 4th 159, 78 Cal Rptr 2d 847, 1998 Cal App LEXIS 854, review or rehearing denied California First Amendment v. Sacramento County Superior Court (1998, Cal) 1998 Cal LEXIS 8581.

Public records containing names of county retirees and their pension amounts were not exempt from California Public Records Act disclosure under Gov C § 6253(a). Because Gov C § 31532 did not exempt the records, Gov C § 6254(k) did not apply; moreover, the balancing test applied under Gov C § 6255(a) weighed in favor of disclosure. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. v. Superior Court (2011, 4th Dist) 2011 Cal App LEXIS 823.

8. Records of Complaints

Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), exempting from the disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act, “records of complaints to,” or investigations conducted by, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and any state or local agency, or any such investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes, does not violate First Amendment guarantees of freedom to communicate. Decisional law generally accepts the assumption that a statute calling for general disclosure may validly define reasonably restricted areas of nondisclosure, provided that they are justified by a genuine public policy concern, such as the privacy of citizens whose information gets into government files. Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974, Cal App 3d Dist) 42 Cal App 3d 645, 117 Cal Rptr 106, 1974 Cal App LEXIS 1256.

Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), exempting from the disclosure requirements of the Public Records Act, “records of or complaints to,” or investigations conducted by, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and any state or local police agency, “or any such investigatory files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes,” is properly interpreted as exempting records of complaints, as well as records of investigation maintained for licensing purposes by agencies of the Department of Consumer Affairs. The words “any such” would be surplusage if they did not embrace the same records as the preceding clause, and that textual interpretation comports with the dual legislative concern, appearing throughout the act, for individual privacy as well as disclosure “concerning the conduct of the people's business.” Both complaining witnesses, who often demand anonymity, and the public have an interest in the confidentiality of complaints of wrongdoing prior to the inception of formal enforcement or disciplinary proceedings. Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974, Cal App 3d Dist) 42 Cal App 3d 645, 117 Cal Rptr 106, 1974 Cal App LEXIS 1256.

In holding that letters of complaint to the Bureau of Collections and Investigative Services charging unethical or abusive practices by licensed collection agencies are exempt from disclosure as “records of complaint” within the meaning of Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), the trial court erred in failing to find on the material factor, urged as a special basis of plaintiffs' demand for disclosure under the Public Records Act, of the bureau's practice of furnishing copies of consumer complaints to the affected licensees. Gov C § 6254, setting forth various categories of exemptions, and further providing that it is not to be construed as “preventing” public inspection of exempted material not otherwise prohibited by law, does not permit selective disclosure. The practice of disclosing complaints to the affected licensees destroys the privilege of confidentiality otherwise permitted by the statute, and, when a record loses its exempt status, it becomes subject to the provision of Gov C § 6253, subd. (a), that “every citizen has a right to inspect any public record.” Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974, Cal App 3d Dist) 42 Cal App 3d 645, 117 Cal Rptr 106, 1974 Cal App LEXIS 1256.

The procedural regulations of the California Highway Patrol governing the investigation of citizen complaints concerning conduct of personnel in that department come within the meaning of “Public Records” in Gov C § 6252, subd (d), defining terms used in the Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.), and since such regulations are not themselves “records of complaints” or “investigations” within the meaning of Gov C § 6254, subd (f), and are thus not exempt from disclosure thereunder, or under Gov C § 6254, subd (k), they are required by the Public Records Act to be made available by the department for public inspection and copying. Cook v. Craig (1976, Cal App 3d Dist) 55 Cal App 3d 773, 127 Cal Rptr 712, 1976 Cal App LEXIS 1289.

In an action by a newspaper under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov C § 6250 et seq.) to compel a city to comply with its request for public access to certain records regarding investigations of citizens' complaints against the city's police department, the trial court erred in ordering disclosure in camera of the requested records and preparation of a descriptive index of the documents with reasons for exempting them from disclosure. Pen C § 832.7, establishes the confidentiality of the records, since the term “confidential,” as used therein, has independent significance and, thus, the statute does not merely define procedures for disclosure of such records in criminal and civil proceedings. And, although the CPRA procedures applied to the newspaper's request, Pen C § 832.7, is a provision of state law within the meaning of Gov C § 6254, subd. (k), which exempts from disclosure records exempted pursuant to state law. Pen C § 832.7, allows the dissemination of data regarding the number, type, and disposition of complaints, provided the individuals involved are not identified, but the newspaper's request was not narrowly drawn with that section in mind. Also, Gov C § 6259, permits an in camera examination of records to determine if they have been properly withheld, but only if the records are clearly subject to disclosure. City of Richmond v. Superior Court (1995, Cal App 1st Dist) 32 Cal App 4th 1430, 38 Cal Rptr 2d 632, 1995 Cal App LEXIS 200, rehearing denied (1995, Cal App 1st Dist) 1995 Cal App LEXIS 313, review denied City of Richmond v. Contra Costa County Superior Court (1995, Cal) 1995 Cal LEXIS 4046.

9. Pending Litigation; Discovery

In a personal injury action against a city for battery by a policeman, information relating to any suspension of the officer resulting from the alleged battery would not be discoverable, in view of the rule prohibiting the use of remedial measures undertaken after an event to prove negligence or culpability in connection with the event itself. City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1973, Cal App 2d Dist) 33 Cal App 3d 778, 109 Cal Rptr 365, 1973 Cal App LEXIS 932.

Gov C § 6254, subd. (b), exempting from disclosure records “pertaining to” pending litigation to which a public agency is a party, was not applicable to an order for discovery of information and documents in the possession of the Division of Industrial Safety, in personal injury and wrongful death actions arising out of the collapse of a bridge under construction. The exception in question essentially provides public agencies with the protection of the attorney-client privilege, including work product, for a limited period while there is ongoing litigation, and the discovery order did not require the disclosure of any documents or records coming within the attorney-client privilege. State of California ex rel. Division of Industrail Safety v. Superior Court (1974, Cal App 2d Dist) 43 Cal App 3d 778, 117 Cal Rptr 726, 1974 Cal App LEXIS 1355.

In a wrongful death action against a city and certain of its employees including police officers who allegedly inflicted fatal gunshot wounds on the deceased, the district attorney could not successfully resist plaintiff's efforts to discover materials in his possession under the absolute privilege established as to official information by Evi C § 1040, subd (b)(1), if disclosure is forbidden by federal or state statutes, on the ground that Gov C § 6254, subd (f), a part of the Public Records Act relating to “records of complaints to or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of” law enforcement agencies, forbids disclosure of such material. The statute, by its terms, deals only with public inspection of certain governmental documents, and the act further specifically provides in Gov C § 6260, that its provision “shall not be deemed in any manner to affect the rights of litigants, including parties to administrative proceedings, under the laws of discovery.” Shepherd v. Superior Court of Alameda County (1976) 17 Cal 3d 107, 130 Cal Rptr 257, 550 P2d 161, 1976 Cal LEXIS 279.

The trial court's discovery order in a professor's defamation action against his former university employer that allowed the professor discovery of his tenure and promotion files, save and except letters of recommendation or reference to the university concerning the professor written when he was being considered for employment constituted error insofar as it failed to provide appropriate protection of the privacy interests of those who had furnished confidential information for the files after the professor's employment. Protection should have been afforded not only to those who had furnished confidential information prior to the professor's employment, but also to all those who had subsequently furnished confidential information concerning the professor's qualifications for employment, promotion, additional compensation, or termination. Since there was no compelling state purpose in maintenance of confidentiality of the contents of letters of reference in the file, the professor was entitled to the disclosure thereof, subject to protection of the confidential communications' authors by withholding their names and other identification. Courts should impose partial limitations rather than outright denial of discovery when by doing so otherwise affected constitutional rights may be preserved. Board of Trustees v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1981, Cal App 1st Dist) 119 Cal App 3d 516, 174 Cal Rptr 160, 1981 Cal App LEXIS 1766.

The Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.) did not require disclosure of a letter a city attorney prepared for the city council, in which the attorney expressed legal opinions concerning a resident's pending appeal of a parcel map. Although the letter was a “public record” within the meaning of the act, it was a confidential communication within the attorney-client privilege. Further, Gov C § 6254, subd. (b), which exempts from disclosure records pertaining to pending litigation until the litigation is terminated, does not operate to limit the scope of the attorney-client privilege to matters pertaining to pending litigation. This subdivision pertains to all public records, but does not address the privilege. Gov C § 6254, subd. (k), expressly exempts from disclosure matters privileged under the Evidence Code. This includes the attorney-client privilege. Thus, the city could assert the privilege without the necessity of alleging that the letter was a document pertaining to pending litigation. Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 5 Cal 4th 363, 20 Cal Rptr 2d 330, 853 P2d 496, 1993 Cal LEXIS 3190.

Under the “pending litigation” exemption from the disclosure of public records (Gov C § 6254, subd. (b)), a document is protected from disclosure only if it was specifically prepared for use in litigation. Thus, records of an internal investigation conducted by a city police department into the actions of a police sergeant (focusing on whether he had improperly used city property, investigated drug use on county property while on duty as a city officer, or used his police status to obtain confidential information from a school) were not protected from disclosure to a newspaper under that exemption, even though they later became relevant to a tort claim arising from the sergeant's conduct, which was filed by a deputy sheriff two weeks after the investigation had concluded. City of Hemet v. Superior Court (1995, Cal App 4th Dist) 37 Cal App 4th 1411, 44 Cal Rptr 2d 532, 1995 Cal App LEXIS 824, rehearing denied (1995, Cal App 4th Dist) 1995 Cal App LEXIS 906, review denied City of Hemet v. Riverside County Superior Court (1995, Cal) 1995 Cal LEXIS 6986.

A city was required, under the California Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.), to disclose to an individual deposition transcripts from litigation in which the city was a party. Although it asserted the depositions fell under the Civil Discovery Act, the California Public Records Act contemplates that litigation documents fall within its purview. Gov C § 6254, subd. (b), exempts records of pending litigation from disclosure only until the litigation is completed, and it is not limited to attorney-client privilege or work product matters. The depositions also related to conduct of public business subject to disclosure. Nor was the city exempt under Gov C § 6254, subd. (k) (disclosure not required for records exempted under federal or state law). Although it asserted that, under Gov C § 6254.5, subd. (b), no waiver of exemption occurred since it was compelled to take part in discovery in the underlying cases, that section references the exemption of Gov C § 6254, subd. (b), which lasts only while litigation is pending, and the cases were completed. Nor were the depositions exempt under Gov C § 6255 (exemption if public interest served by withholding record outweighs public interest served by disclosure). The cases involved claims of excessive force with police dogs, and disclosure served a public interest. There was also no evidence of invasion of the privacy rights of people involved in the cases. Finally, there was no evidence of the burden or prejudice the city faced in having to review the depositions for exemptions, nor did the city cite any provision that this was a valid ground for nondisclosure. City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1996, Cal App 2d Dist) 41 Cal App 4th 1083, 49 Cal Rptr 2d 35, 1996 Cal App LEXIS 23.

A claim form submitted by a minor to a public school district under the California Tort Claims Act (Gov C § 910 et seq.), where a student was sodomized with a broomstick by classmates during a hazing incident, was not protected against disclosure under exemptions in the Public Records Act (Gov C § 6254(b) or Gov C § 6255), or Ed C § 49060. Gov C § 6254(b) was primarily designed to prevent a litigant opposing the government from using the Public Records Act's disclosure provisions to accomplish earlier or greater access to records pertaining to pending litigation or tort claims than would otherwise be allowed under the rules of discovery. No unfair advantage inures against the public entity by disclosure of the mere claim form. Thus, a Claims Act form itself does not fall within the exemption of Gov C § 6254(b). In addition, the claim form is not exempt under Gov C § 6255 in that the public interest served by withholding the claims does not clearly outweigh the public interest served by disclosure of the record. Given the facts of the case, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy, nor was there conduct constituting a serious invasion of privacy. However, there is a legitimate and important competing public interest in ending school hazing practices that potentially endanger many children. Finally, the District failed to justify withholding any record under Ed C § 49060. A Claims Act claim, even if presented on behalf of a student, is not an “educational record” or “pupil record” within the purview of such exemption. Just because a litigant has chosen to sue a school does not transmogrify the Claims Act claim into such a record. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court (1998, Cal App 4th Dist) 62 Cal App 4th 1496, 73 Cal Rptr 2d 777, 1998 Cal App LEXIS 318, review denied Poway Unified Sch. Dist. v. San Diego County Superior Court (1998, Cal) 1998 Cal LEXIS 5101.

A petitioner sought a writ of mandate to compel the respondent superior court to order the real party in interest, a city, to provide the petitioner with all documents relating to his arrest, pursuant to his request for the documents under the California Public Records Act (CPRA; Gov C § 6250 et seq.). The trial court denied the writ on the basis that the documents at issue were exempted from disclosure under the “pending litigation” provision found in Gov C § 6254, subd. (b). After the petition for writ of mandate was filed in this case, the city provided petitioner with all of the documents in its possession pertaining to petitioner's arrest. This did not render the matter moot, however, because the question of petitioner's entitlement to the documents in the first place remained to be determined. Further, if the question was to be decided in petitioner's favor, he would be entitled to collect his attorney fees and costs. (Gov C § 6259, subd. (d).) In addition, the interpretation of the “pending litigation” exemption to the CPRA was a matter of public interest and continuing concern. Fairley v. Superior Court (1998, Cal App 2d Dist) 66 Cal App 4th 1414, 78 Cal Rptr 2d 648, 1998 Cal App LEXIS 823, rehearing denied (1998, Cal App 2d Dist) 67 Cal App 4th 730a, 1998 Cal App LEXIS 873.

Where a petitioner sought a writ of mandate to compel the respondent superior court to order the real party in interest, a city, to provide the petitioner with all documents relating to his arrest, pursuant to his request for the documents under the California Public Records Act (CPRA; Gov C § 6250 et seq.), the trial court erred in denying the writ on the basis that the documents at issue were exempted from disclosure under the “pending litigation” provision found in Gov C § 6254, subd. (b). “Pending litigation,” which focuses on the purpose of the document, serves to protect documents created by a public entity for its own use in anticipation of litigation, which documents it reasonably has an interest in keeping to itself until litigation is finalized. In this way, a litigant opposing a public entity is prevented from taking unfair advantage of the public agency status of his or her opponent. Through this exemption, a public entity may refuse to disclose documents which it prepares for use in litigation. There appears to be no grave danger in allowing a litigant or potential litigant to obtain documents from a public agency through the CPRA, rather than waiting to file suit and obtaining the documents through formal discovery. In fact, to the extent that settlement of disputes may be aided by prompt access to documents, it would be better. Fairley v. Superior Court (1998, Cal App 2d Dist) 66 Cal App 4th 1414, 78 Cal Rptr 2d 648, 1998 Cal App LEXIS 823, rehearing denied (1998, Cal App 2d Dist) 67 Cal App 4th 730a, 1998 Cal App LEXIS 873.

A plaintiff who has filed suit against a public agency may, either directly or indirectly through a representative, file a Public Records Act request for the purpose of obtaining documents for use in the plaintiff's civil action; the documents must be produced unless one or more of the statutory exemptions apply (Gov C § 6254). Nor is a court bound by prior discovery rulings unless all of the elements of collateral estoppel are present. County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2000, Cal App 2d Dist) 82 Cal App 4th 819, 98 Cal Rptr 2d 564, 2000 Cal App LEXIS 607, review denied County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Superior Court (2000, Cal) 2000 Cal LEXIS 8971.

A document is protected from disclosure under the pending litigation exemption only if the document was specifically prepared for use in litigation. Section 6254(b), however, is not duplicative of subdivision (k), through which CCP § 2018 (repealed) applies and protects attorney work product, but rather subdivision (b) confers upon public agencies a broader exemption from disclosure by protecting the work product generated by a public agency in anticipation of litigation. County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2000, Cal App 2d Dist) 82 Cal App 4th 819, 98 Cal Rptr 2d 564, 2000 Cal App LEXIS 607, review denied County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Superior Court (2000, Cal) 2000 Cal LEXIS 8971.

Newspaper was not entitled to disclosure of communications between a university and two employees relating to the employees' law suits because the parties intended that their correspondence not be disclosed to third parties. Board of Trustees of California State University v. Superior Court (2005, Cal App 4th Dist) 132 Cal App 4th 889, 34 Cal Rptr 3d 82, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 1443, review denied UC Board of Trustees v. S.C. (Copley Press) (2005, Cal) 2005 Cal LEXIS 12210.

Pending litigation exemption of Gov C § 6254(b) applies to litigation-related documents, when sought by persons or entities not party to the litigation, which the parties to the litigation do not intend to be revealed outside the litigation. Board of Trustees of California State University v. Superior Court (2005, Cal App 4th Dist) 132 Cal App 4th 889, 34 Cal Rptr 3d 82, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 1443, review denied UC Board of Trustees v. S.C. (Copley Press) (2005, Cal) 2005 Cal LEXIS 12210.

Deposition transcripts are not covered by the pending litigation exemption of Gov C § 6254(b) because they are available to the public under CCP § 2025.570. Board of Trustees of California State University v. Superior Court (2005, Cal App 4th Dist) 132 Cal App 4th 889, 34 Cal Rptr 3d 82, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 1443, review denied UC Board of Trustees v. S.C. (Copley Press) (2005, Cal) 2005 Cal LEXIS 12210.

Newspaper was entitled to disclosure of deposition transcripts relating to litigation between a university and two employees. Board of Trustees of California State University v. Superior Court (2005, Cal App 4th Dist) 132 Cal App 4th 889, 34 Cal Rptr 3d 82, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 1443, review denied UC Board of Trustees v. S.C. (Copley Press) (2005, Cal) 2005 Cal LEXIS 12210.

In a case in which a card room operator challenged a city ordinance that prohibited operation of card rooms between 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. and backline betting, the trial court properly issued a discovery order protecting specified documents from disclosure on the ground that their discovery would violate the mental processes principle, which precludes judicial inquiry into the motivation or mental processes of legislators in enacting legislation. Because evidence relating to the mental processes of individual legislators was irrelevant to the judicial task, the evidence was not the proper subject of discovery requests. Sutter's Place v. Superior Court (2008, 6th Dist) 161 Cal App 4th 1370, 75 Cal Rptr 3d 9, 2008 Cal App LEXIS 541, review denied Sutter's Place, Inc. v. S.C. (City of San Jose) (2008, Cal.) 2008 Cal. LEXIS 7750.

10. Evidentiary Privileges

An agreement entered into between a school district and a private corporation, providing for performance by the corporation of research and development work and services for a fee, could not be said to require the district to violate Gov C § 6253, requiring generally that public records be open to inspection during an agency's office hours, but giving the agency the right to adopt regulations stating the procedures to be followed when making records available, where the agreement specifically permitted the disclosure of any confidential material for which there was a reasonable and proper need, on the condition that the person receiving the material agree not to publish or sell it. Moreover, Gov C § 6254, provides that nothing in the Public Records Act shall be construed to require disclosure of records exempted by provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege, and, under Evi C § 1060, the owner of a trade secret is privileged to refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing the secret. California Sch. Employees Assn. v. Sunnyvale Elementary Sch. Dist. (1973, Cal App 1st Dist) 36 Cal App 3d 46, 111 Cal Rptr 433, 1973 Cal App LEXIS 636.

In an action by former faculty members of a state university against the chancellor and others, predicated on their alleged denial of tenure or retention in retaliation for opposing the election of their department chairman, in which the faculty members made a strong showing in a motion for discovery that certain official information was essential to determine whether they were dismissed for exercising constitutional rights, rather than for the stated reasons, the trial court did not comply with applicable principles requiring it, on being confronted with a claim of conditional privilege for official information under Ev C § 1040, subd. (b)(2), to engage in a weighing process to determine whether the disclosure would be against the public interest, where the trial court's one-sentence and one-word orders denying the motions contained no findings that disclosure would be against the public interest. Parnes v. Superior Court (1978, Cal App 1st Dist) 81 Cal App 3d 831, 146 Cal Rptr 818, 1978 Cal App LEXIS 1627.

Financial data supplied by a waste disposal company to a city which the city relied on in granting a rate increase to the disposal company pursuant to an exclusive contract between the city and the waste disposal company for the collection of waste and garbage within the city limits, was not exempt from disclosure as a public record by Gov C § 6254, subd. (k), which exempts from disclosure records exempted from disclosure under federal or state law, including Evid. Code, §§ 1040 (privilege for official information) and 1060 (privilege to protect trade secret). There was no showing that the city would be injured by revealing the data. Moreover, under Evid. Code, § 1040, there was no showing that disclosure of the information was against the public interest; disclosure was shown to weigh in favor of the public's interest in view of the fact that the rate increase amounted to a 15 to 25 percent increase in just two years that the public-not the city-would have to pay. Further, assurances of confidentiality were insufficient in themselves to justify withholding pertinent public information from the public. Nor was a showing of egregious conduct necessary to gain access to relevant data, since in many cases knowledge of such could only be gained by access. San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983, Cal App 2d Dist) 143 Cal App 3d 762, 192 Cal Rptr 415, 1983 Cal App LEXIS 1811.

Rejection of a county sheriff's claim for exemption from disclosure to a television and broadcasting company of records pertaining to licenses to carry concealed weapons, under Gov C § 6255, the “catch-all” exemption to the general policy of disclosure of public records under the Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.), on the ground that the public interest weighed in favor of disclosure as opposed to nondisclosure, required rejection of a claim for exemption made by the sheriff with respect to the same records, under Gov C § 6254, subd. (k), exempting records, disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to provisions of federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege, since the same weighing process is involved under both provisions. Rejection of the sheriff's claim for exemption from disclosure of the records sought, based on Evid. Code, § 1040, which creates a privilege for official information acquired in confidence, under certain circumstances, was mandated for the same reason. CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal 3d 646, 230 Cal Rptr 362, 725 P2d 470, 1986 Cal LEXIS 270.

In a civil action in which the defendant sought to compel discovery of memoranda from a state agency to the Governor's office, the trial court erred in denying the motion on grounds that such memoranda were absolutely privileged. The applicable privilege was not absolute but conditional under Ev C § 1040(b)(2), which required the trial court to consider the party's need for disclosure in the interest of justice, and to determine whether that interest was outweighed by the public interest in preserving confidentiality. The Public Records Act exemption for the Governor's correspondence (Gov C § 6254 (l )) did not apply to the issue whether records were privileged in pending litigation so as to defeat a party's right to discovery (Gov C § 6260). Marylander v. Superior Court (2000, Cal App 2d Dist) 81 Cal App 4th 1119, 97 Cal Rptr 2d 439, 2000 Cal App LEXIS 516.

11. Deliberative Process Exemption

Under the “deliberative process” exemption to disclosure of public records (Gov C § 6254, subd. (a)) in the Public Records Act, the key question is whether the disclosure of materials would expose an agency's decisionmaking process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions. Even if the content of a document is purely factual, it is nonetheless exempt from public scrutiny if it is actually related to the process by which policies are formulated or inextricably intertwined with policymaking processes. Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal 3d 1325, 283 Cal Rptr 893, 813 P2d 240, 1991 Cal LEXIS 3059.

12. Personnel Matters

In a prosecution of a state prison inmate for the murder of a prison employee, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's pretrial discovery motion for production, for impeachment purposes, of the complete personnel files of all prison staff members and the inmate files of all prisoners that each side was considering calling to testify at trial, where the prosecutor had offered to go through the files and disclose any material which might be relevant to impeachment, but defense counsel apparently rejected that offer. The blanket request failed to describe the requested information with sufficient specificity and there is a legitimate public interest in protecting against wholesale disclosure of the matter requested. People v. Gaulden (1974, Cal App 3d Dist) 36 Cal App 3d 942, 111 Cal Rptr 803, 1974 Cal App LEXIS 733.

In determining, under Gov C § 6259, whether a public official is justified in refusing to publicly disclose records of investigations of complaints against employees on the ground that the public interest in protection of personal privacy outweighs the public interest in disclosure (Gov C §§ 6254, subd. (c), and 6255), the court should consider whether there is reasonable cause to believe the charges were well founded and whether they were substantial in nature. Thus, in an action to compel disclosure of an audit report of financial activities of university employees, the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to order disclosure of portions of the audit report that indicated certain substantial charges against the employees to be well founded. American Federation of State Etc. Employees v. Regents of University of California (1978, Cal App 1st Dist) 80 Cal App 3d 913, 146 Cal Rptr 42, 1978 Cal App LEXIS 1474.

Information sought by a citizens' assistant, appointed pursuant to a city charter, relating to a complaining citizen's evaluation, by a city department, on her application for employment was not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act. The assistant was clothed with official dignity and prestige comparable to that of other city officials and his official acts were those of the city itself. A disclosure, such as the one sought, by one official or department to another is not a “public disclosure.” In the exercise of his functions, the citizens' assistant, like all other of the city's officials and employees, was subject to the provisions of any law forbidding public, or private, disclosure of designated records or information to citizens or others. Parrott v. Rogers (1980, Cal App 1st Dist) 103 Cal App 3d 377, 163 Cal Rptr 75, 1980 Cal App LEXIS 1582.

Financial data supplied by a waste disposal company to a city which the city relied on in granting a rate increase to the company pursuant to an exclusive contract between the city and company for the collection of waste and garbage within the city limits, was not exempt from disclosure as a public record by Gov C § 6254, subd. (c), which exempts from disclosure “[p]ersonal, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” When the city publicly based its decision to permit the company to increase waste and garbage collection rates on the financial data supplied by the disposal company, the data lost its exempt status. San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court (1983, Cal App 2d Dist) 143 Cal App 3d 762, 192 Cal Rptr 415, 1983 Cal App LEXIS 1811.

Two letters in a city firefighter's personnel file-one letter appointing him to the position of transit administrator and the other rescinding the appointment and reinstating him as a firefighter-were not exempt from disclosure under Gov C § 6254, subd. (c), which exempts personnel files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, from disclosure under the Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.). The letters contained no personal information. Although reclassification may be embarrassing to an individual, in California, employment contracts are public records and may not be considered exempt. (Gov C § 6254.8.) The letters were memoranda of the firefighter's appointment to a position and the rescission thereof; they therefore manifested his employment contract. Because the letters regarded business transactions and contained no personal information, the trial court properly ordered disclosure of the letters under the act. Braun v. City of Taft (1984, Cal App 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 1890.

The trial court did not err in ordering disclosure of the first page of a city firefighter's salary card under the Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.), to show that the firefighter's employment record had been altered, although the card contained personal information (the firefighter's address, birth date, phone number, social security and credit union numbers, and salary) which was not relevant to the inquiry. The trial court could have ordered the personal information taken out before the card was made public; however, the data listed on the card was not in any way embarrassing and, although personal, was not secret. Thus, the court was within its discretion in finding that the disclosure of the face sheet of the salary card would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Gov C § 6254, subd. (c), and was not exempt from disclosure thereunder. Braun v. City of Taft (1984, Cal App 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 1890.

Although Gov C § 6254, subd. (c), exempts personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, from disclosure under the Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.), the Legislature, by using the word “files,” did not intend to exempt the entire file and thus to prohibit the selective disclosure of certain documents from the file. In view of Gov C § 6250, which states that “In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds and 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” and the policy favoring disclosure of public records, it is unlikely that the Legislature intended such an all or nothing approach. Braun v. City of Taft (1984, Cal App 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 1890.

In cases involving the disclosure of personnel, medical, or similar files under the Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.), the weighing process under Gov C § 6254, subd. (c), to determine whether the disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, and thus make the records exempt from disclosure, requires a consideration of almost exactly the same elements that should be considered under Gov C § 6255, which provides that a public agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating that, on the facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. Braun v. City of Taft (1984, Cal App 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 1890.

Disclosure of material from a city employee's personnel file under the Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.) was not prohibited by the employee's constitutional right to privacy (Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1). The balancing test employed by the trial court in its determination that the records were not exempt under Gov C § 6254, subd. (c), because they did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy, is the same one which should be utilized in weighing the right of privacy against the right of the public to oversee the actions of governmental employees. The trial court carefully considered the clash between the need for public disclosure of its business and the need of the individual to privacy when making its determination under § 6254, subd. (c); no more was required under Cal. Const., Art. I, § 1. Braun v. City of Taft (1984, Cal App 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 1890.

The Medical Board of California did not violate the Information Practices Act (CC § 1798.61(a)) or the California Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6254(c), 6254.3(a)) by posting on its internet web site the “addresses of record” of licensed physicians, including those employed by state and local clinics and prisons who were unable to receive mail where they treated patients. Licensees were free to designate a post office box as their “address of record,” in which case their home addresses would remain confidential. To the extent a licensee chose to continue using a home address as an address of record, knowing that it would be posted on the board's web site, the physician may be deemed to have waived any interest he or she may have in the confidentiality of such information. Lorig v. Medical Board (2000, Cal App 1st Dist) 78 Cal App 4th 462, 92 Cal Rptr 2d 862, 2000 Cal App LEXIS 108.

In an invasion of privacy case concerning a publisher's request for information about city employees' salaries, a preliminary injunction prohibiting the cities from disclosing salaries received by individually identifiable employees was appropriate; the California Public Records Act recognizes the right of privacy in personnel files by virtue of the exemption for such files in Gov C § 6254(c). Teamsters Local 856 v. Priceless, LLC (2003, Cal App 1st Dist) 112 Cal App 4th 1500, 5 Cal Rptr 3d 847, 2003 Cal App LEXIS 1639, review denied Teamsters Local 856 v. Priceless (2004, Cal) 2004 Cal LEXIS 523.

In an action brought by a newspaper company for disclosure of highly paid municipal employees' salaries, the employees had no legally protected privacy interest in the information because its disclosure did not violate the state constitutional right to privacy under Cal Const Art I, § 1 and was not an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Gov C § 6254(c); public salaries are matters of substantial public interest warranting open discussion, and in accordance with Cal Const Art I, § 3(b)(2), statutes restricting public access to information concerning the conduct of public business must be narrowly construed. Internat. Federation of Prof. & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2005, Cal App 1st Dist) 128 Cal App 4th 586, 27 Cal Rptr 3d 262, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 607, aff'd International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007, Cal) 42 Cal 4th 319, 64 Cal Rptr 3d 693, 165 P 3d 488, 2007 Cal LEXIS 8918.

While public employment does not entail the loss of privacy rights, and public employees have the same financial privacy rights as anyone else after they have received their salaries, it does require a surrender of anonymity due to the fact that public employees are engaged in the people's business; the public is entitled to know the names as well as the salaries of its highly paid employees. Internat. Federation of Prof. & Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2005, Cal App 1st Dist) 128 Cal App 4th 586, 27 Cal Rptr 3d 262, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 607, aff'd International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007, Cal) 42 Cal 4th 319, 64 Cal Rptr 3d 693, 165 P 3d 488, 2007 Cal LEXIS 8918.

Community college district was not required under the California Public Records Act, Gov C § 6250 et seq., to disclose the personal performance goals of its former superintendent because the exemption of Gov C § 6254(c) for personnel files also applies to a public employee's personal performance goals. Versaci v. Superior Court (2005, Cal App 4th Dist) 127 Cal App 4th 805, 26 Cal Rptr 3d 92, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 385, rehearing denied (2005) 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 640, review denied Versaci v. S.C. (Paloma Community College District) (2005) 2005 Cal. LEXIS 6523.

Where all information sought by a newspaper was obtained by the California Commission On Peace Officer Standards from peace officer personnel records within the meaning of Pen C §§ 832.7, 832.8, the requested information was exempt from disclosure under Gov C § 6254(k). California Com. on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court (2005, Cal App 3d Dist) 128 Cal App 4th 281, 27 Cal Rptr 3d 108, 2005 Cal App LEXIS 541, rev'd Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court (2007, Cal) 42 Cal 4th 278, 64 Cal Rptr 3d 661, 165 P 3d 462, 2007 Cal LEXIS 8916.

Defendant's request for protective order to redact certain information was granted because the district court found that disclosure of the sensitive information contained in the applications to carry concealed weapons (CCW) threatened to subject judicial and law enforcement officers to heightened risk of attacks upon themselves or their families and the information could reveal the vulnerability to attack of persons who applied for a CCW. Mehl v. Blanas (2007, ED Cal) 241 FRD 653, 2007 US Dist LEXIS 25291.

California Supreme Court has rejected the notion that peace officers in general have a greater privacy interest in the amount of their salaries than that possessed by other public employees, and the public interest in disclosure is equally strong as between peace officers and other public employees. While individual peace officers, such as those working undercover, may have a legitimate interest in maintaining their anonymity, and that interest would warrant exempting their names from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, Gov C § 6250 et seq., that circumstance does not support the conclusion that peace officers as a general category have a privacy interest in their identity sufficient to render salary records confidential under Pen C § 832.8(f) whenever those records include individually identified officers. International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007, Cal) 42 Cal 4th 319, 64 Cal Rptr 3d 693, 165 P 3d 488, 2007 Cal LEXIS 8918.

In a case in which newspapers sought the disclosure of salary information of all city employees who earned $ 100,000 or more in a particular fiscal year, the information sought was not private information that happened to be collected in the records of a public entity, but, rather, it was information regarding an aspect of government operations, the disclosure of which contributed to the public's understanding and oversight of those operations by allowing interested parties to monitor the expenditure of public funds. The disclosure of such information under the California Public Records Act, Gov C § 6250 et seq., does not violate the right of privacy protected by the California Constitution. International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007, Cal) 42 Cal 4th 319, 64 Cal Rptr 3d 693, 165 P 3d 488, 2007 Cal LEXIS 8918.

In a case in which newspapers sought the disclosure of salary information of all city employees who earned $ 100,000 or more in a particular fiscal year, disclosure of the salary information would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy because salary information should not be exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, Gov C § 6250 et seq. To the extent that some public employees may expect their salaries to remain a private matter, that expectation is not a reasonable one and is, accordingly, entitled to diminished weight in the balancing test that a court applies under Gov C § 6254(c), and counterbalancing any cognizable interest that public employees may have in avoiding disclosure of their salaries is the strong public interest in knowing how the government spends its money. International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2007, Cal) 42 Cal 4th 319, 64 Cal Rptr 3d 693, 165 P 3d 488, 2007 Cal LEXIS 8918.

Public Records Act did not require a county to disclose an attorney report relating to the facts underlying a high ranking employee's resignation, unless and until the county waived the attorney-client privilege under Gov C § 6254 subd. (k). Moreover, a confidentiality provision in the severance agreement essentially made it a breach of contract for the county to waive the privilege. Sanchez v. County of San Bernardino (2009, 4th Dist) 176 Cal App 4th 516, 98 Cal Rptr 3d 96, 2009 Cal App LEXIS 1302, review denied Sanchez (Elizabeth) v. County of San Bernardino (2009, Cal.) 2009 Cal. LEXIS 11661.

In accordance with the narrow construction required by Cal Const Art I, § 3, subd. (b)(2), for statutory exemptions from disclosure of records under Gov C §§ 6253, 6254, subd. (k), the names and benefit amounts of county retirees are not confidential under Gov C § 31532; further, the catchall exemption in Gov C § 6255, subd. (a), did not prevent a newspaper from obtaining disclosure of county retirees' names and amounts. The newspaper could not obtain disclosure of the retirees' ages, however, because § 31532 protects this information either as part of the member's sworn statement under Gov C § 31526 or as otherwise nonpublic information. Retirement Assn. v. Sonoma County Superior Court (2011, 1st Dist) 2011 Cal App LEXIS 1124.

13. Federal Law

As recognized in both the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, 6 USCS § 131 through § 134, and the accompanying regulations promulgated by Department of Homeland Security, there is a distinction between submitters of critical infrastructure information and recipients of protected critical infrastructure information and the federal prohibition on disclosure of protected confidential infrastructure information applies only to recipients of protected confidential information; accordingly, in a case in which a requester sought a copy of a county's geographic information system basemap under the California Public Records Act, Gov C § 6250 et seq., the federal provisions did not apply because the county was a submitter of critical infrastructure information and did not receive protected confidential information. County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court (2009, 6th Dist) 170 Cal App 4th 1301, 89 Cal Rptr 3d 374, 2009 Cal App LEXIS 148.

Exemption provisions of Federal Freedom of Information Act, rather than Ev C § 1040 and Gov C § 6254(f), are determinative in suit against California Adult Authority on defendant's motion to withhold allegedly privileged personnel files. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. (1975, 9th Cir) 511 F2d 192, 1975 US App LEXIS 16555, aff'd (1976) 426 US 394, 96 S Ct 2119, 48 L Ed 2d 725, 1976 US LEXIS 62.

In light of the fact that the California Public Records Act (Gov C §§ 6250 et seq.) was modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 USCS § 552), Gov C § 6254, subd. (f), which provides an exemption from disclosure for records of complaints to or investigations conducted by any state or local police agency, should receive a parallel construction with 5 USCS § 552(b)(7), which exempts investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, including the 1974 amendments to § 552(b)(7), which limit the investigatory records exemption and were intended to restate and clarify the original purpose of the federal act. South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (1984, Cal App 4th Dist) 160 Cal App 3d 261, 206 Cal Rptr 527, 1984 Cal App LEXIS 2539.

14. Particular Determinations

Because the confidentiality conferred by Gov C § 31532, protected information provided by a member or on the member's behalf to a county employees' retirement system, not all information held by the county employees' retirement system that pertained to or related to the member, a trial court correctly concluded that the information, as requested by a newspaper under the California Public Records Act, Gov C §§ 6251 et seq., was not protected from disclosure by § 31532. Moreover, the county employees' retirement system had not shown the privacy interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighed the public interest served by disclosure, and because individual county retirees were not entitled to notice and a hearing before their individual pensions were disclosed, there was no cause to remand to the trial court for a hearing on whether each individual's pension benefits should be kept confidential. Sacramento County Employees' Retirement System v. Superior Court (2011, 3d Dist) 195 Cal App 4th 440, 2011 Cal App LEXIS 569.

Because the confidentiality conferred by Gov C § 31532, protected information provided by a member or on the member's behalf to a county employees' retirement system, not all information held by the county employees' retirement system that pertained to or related to the member, a trial court correctly concluded that the information, as requested by a newspaper under the California Public Records Act, Gov C § 6251 et seq., was not protected from disclosure by § 31532. Moreover, the county employees' retirement system had not shown the privacy interest served by nondisclosure clearly outweighed the public interest served by disclosure, and because individual county retirees were not entitled to notice and a hearing before their individual pensions were disclosed, there was no cause to remand to the trial court for a hearing on whether each individual's pension benefits should be kept confidential. Scott v. Sanches (2010, ED Cal) 2010 US Dist LEXIS 130513.

Browse Previous Page | Table of Contents | Browse Next Page