In City of Gilroy v. Superior Court (Law Foundation of Silicon Valley) , published January 15, 2026, the California Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the lower court of appeal. The plaintiff organization filed a series of public records request with the petitioner city requesting records of cleanups of homeless encampments, including police bodycam recordings. The city initially asserted the footage was exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act. The organization informed the city it intended to file a CPRA writ petition to obtain release of the footage. The city voluntarily placed a litigation hold on the footage to preserve it past the one-year mandated under the city’s retention policy. The city released some of the bodycam footage, not related to citations or arrest, and withheld responsive footage showing citations. A trial court ruled that the exemption was valid and the footage properly withheld. The city informed the organization it had no other responsive, nonexempt records to disclose, because all bodycam footage taken before the retention hold that was more than a year old was destroyed under the city’s retention policy. The organization filed a CPRA writ petition. It sought a writ of mandate to produce the subject records, and a declaration of the rights of the parties. The trial court granted the request for declaratory relief, declaring the city had violated the CPRA by conducting an inadequate search in response to an earlier CPRA request; that the city had a duty to watch the bodycam footage before asserting a blanket exemption, separate exempt from nonexempt footage, and inform the requestor why withheld records are exempt; and that the city’s response to one of the CPRA requests was not timely. The trial court also concluded that the CPRA did not impose a retention requirement and that the city did not violate the CPRA by not retaining records upon receipt of CPRA requests. The court denied a writ of mandate, implicitly finding there were no more responsive nonexempt records to produce. The appellate court reversed the grant of declaratory relief, concluding that declaratory relief is not available once no additional nonexempt records can be produced. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that the CPRA did not impose a record retention requirement.
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court’s holding that declaratory relief is not available once all nonexempt records in existence have been produced. Interpreting the statute, case law, legislative history, and policy considerations, the court concluded that the CPRA authorizes declaratory relief that a public agency has violated its provisions, even in some circumstances when it is uncontested that there are no existing nonexempt records to disclose. At least two such instances in this case involved challenges to policies and practices that might affect responses to future CPRA requests: the declaration that the city conducted an inadequate search, and that the city breached various duties in asserting an exemption for the bodycam footage. On the other hand, the Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the CPRA does not impose a record retention requirement. Considerations included that the CPRA language, which is otherwise detailed about its requirements, does not expressly impose such an obligation; and that other existing statutes do impose record retention requirements on public agencies.
One justice wrote a concurring opinion to discuss the sort of declaratory relief that would be available in CPRA cases.
Leave a Reply