California Supreme Court Watch

#24-32 City of Gilroy v. Superior Court, S282937. (H049552; 96 Cal.App.5th 818, mod. 97 Cal.App.5th 462a; Santa Clara County Superior Court; 20CV362347.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate.

City of Gilroy and Law Foundation of Silicon Valley were consolidated for all purposes. They both present the following issues: (1) May an organization obtain declaratory relief under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 7920.000 et seq.) based on a public entity’s failure to preserve records while the organization’s requests for those records were pending? (2) Is it a violation of the Public Records Act for a public entity to fail to preserve records it determined were exempt from disclosure before a court has had an opportunity to conduct a review?

Petition for review granted: 2/21/2024

Case fully briefed: 8/26/2024

Cause argued and submitted: 11/04/2025

Opinion filed: Judgment reversed: 1/15/2026

See the Court of Appeal Opinion.

See the Petition for Review.

See the Oral Argument.

See the California Supreme Court Opinion.  (City of Gilroy v. Superior Court (2026) __ Cal.5th __.)

“As to the first issue, we conclude from the statutory text, considered in light of the CPRA’s purpose of “increasing freedom of information” (Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, 425 (Filarsky)), that declaratory relief under the CPRA is available in at least some circumstances in which all existing responsive, nonexempt records have been disclosed in response to a records request. An agency’s disclosure of those records does not necessarily moot a request for declaratory relief that would “enforce that person’s right under this division to inspect or receive a copy of any public record or class of public records.” (§ 7923.000.) At a minimum, declaratory relief is available under the CPRA where the declaration would resolve an ongoing dispute regarding the parties’ rights and obligations in a manner that has some likelihood of affecting future requests for public records or future conduct relating to such requests. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion insofar as the Court of Appeal construed the statute more narrowly as not providing “for declaratory relief other than to determine a public agency’s obligation to disclose records.” (City of Gilroy v. Superior Court (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 818, 833 (City of Gilroy).)

As to the second issue, we agree with the Court of Appeal that the CPRA does not ‘impose a duty upon public agencies to preserve all documents responsive to a public records request that have been withheld as exempt’ for a period of three years, commencing from when a public agency invokes a statutory exemption as a reason to withhold the records. (City of Gilroy, supra, 96 Cal.App.5th at p. 835.) The CPRA, an otherwise detailed statute, is silent regarding any preservation requirement, suggesting that no such requirement exists. And additional considerations — including the statute’s legislative history, the broad scope of the preservation obligation argued to exist, and the presence of retention requirements in other statutes, juxtaposed against the lack of any such direction here — counsel against recognizing this kind of implied preservation duty.”

Chief Justice Guerrero authored the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Corrigan, Liu, Kruger, Groban, Evans, and Stratton* concurred.

Justice Groban filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Corrigan and Kruger concurred.