California Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Declaratory Relief Under the California Public Records Act and Rejects Obligation to Retain Exempt Records

The California Supreme Court held that the California Public Records Act (CPRA) authorizes declaratory relief—even after it is undisputed that a public agency has disclosed all existing responsive, nonexempt records—if an agency is reasonably likely to repeat past conduct that allegedly violates the CPRA. 

The CPRA does not, however, impose an obligation upon agencies to preserve responsive records for any specified period of time after invoking a statutory exemption. City of Gilroy v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 19 Cal.5th 38 (2026).

The Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, a nonprofit legal services organization, filed a series of public records requests with the City of Gilroy in 2018 and 2019 seeking records related to police enforcement actions at homeless encampments, including body-worn camera footage. The City released some responsive records but withheld others under the investigative exemption in CPRA section 7923.600. After the final production, the City informed the Law Foundation that all responsive, nonexempt records had been disclosed. The City also informed the Law Foundation that bodycam footage taken before early 2018 had been destroyed pursuant to its records retention policy, which required bodycam footage to be retained for one year. 

The Law Foundation did not dispute that all responsive, nonexempt records were ultimately produced by the City, but nonetheless filed a petition for writ of mandate requesting, in relevant part, a declaration that the City mishandled the CPRA requests and “failed to produce responsive records that existed at the time and were subsequently destroyed.” 

On review, the California Supreme Court held that the CPRA authorizes declaratory relief in at least some circumstances in which an agency has disclosed all responsive, nonexempt records. Section 7923.000 of the CPRA provides that any person may initiate proceedings “to enforce that person’s right under [the CPRA] to inspect or receive a copy of any public record or class of public records.” The Supreme Court held that this language is not limited to the receipt or inspection of materials that have not yet been produced by an agency in response to a particular request—it instead broadly encompasses pending requests and requests that may happen in the future. 

Without attempting to delineate all circumstances in which declaratory relief may be available under section 7923.000, the Supreme Court held that: “at a minimum, declaratory relief is appropriate in situations in which an agency is reasonably likely to repeat past conduct that allegedly violates the CPRA in response to future records requests.” Here, the first two declarations issued by the trial court concerning the City’s inadequate search and its assertion of exemptions for bodycam footage each addressed contested issues regarding the City’s handling of records requests that were sufficiently likely to recur. In such circumstances, declaratory relief is appropriate to avoid the potential continuation of allegedly unlawful policies or practices that impacts a person’s right to “inspect or receive a copy of any public record.” Declaring the parties’ rights is appropriate to resolve an ongoing dispute and provide a guide for future conduct.

As to the second issue presented, the Supreme Court held that the CPRA does not impose a duty upon public agencies to preserve records responsive to a public records request for three years after invoking a statutory exemption. The Supreme Court observed that the CPRA does not include a retention obligation, which is particularly significant considering how detailed the statute otherwise is, and that it would be “highly unusual” for the Legislature to intend for courts to infer such a requirement and to formulate the necessary details. The Supreme Court also noted that legislative history supports the conclusion that the statute was not intended to affect existing law regarding destruction of records. Further, the Supreme Court observed that other statutes already establish preservation duties relating to litigation, and that the breadth of the proposed retention requirement—which could require agencies to retain all records indefinitely if requesters repeatedly asked for “all records”—undermined the Law Foundation’s position on this point.

For the reasons above, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment insofar as it unduly limited the scope of declaratory relief available under the CPRA and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.