City of Gilroy v. Super Ct., H049552M

Background

Law Foundation of Silicon Valley (Law Foundation) sent CPRA requests seeking Gilroy Police Department (GPD) body‑worn camera video and related records about homeless encampment sweeps (2018–2019 requests).
City initially asserted investigatory exemptions and did not review or produce bodycam footage; Law Foundation followed with a May 2019 request and later narrowed the timeframe to recordings from Jan 1, 2019 onward.
After threatened litigation, GPD placed a litigation hold (Aug 22, 2019), reviewed footage, released ~52 minutes, and withheld 10:04 minutes as exempt; GPD reported other pre‑August 2019 footage had been automatically deleted under its retention policy.
Law Foundation sued, alleging inadequate searches, delays, blanket exemptions, failure to preserve responsive records, and CPRA violations; the trial court denied the writ but granted limited declaratory relief about past violations and tentatively designated Law Foundation the prevailing party.
Both sides sought writ review. The Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion in granting declaratory relief based on past conduct (mootness and CPRA limits) but upheld the denial of a declaration that the CPRA imposes a three‑year preservation duty.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Law Foundation)	Defendant's Argument (City)	Held
Whether trial court properly granted declaratory relief for City’s past CPRA violations (searches, boilerplate responses, delays)	Past conduct violated CPRA; declaratory relief appropriate to vindicate access rights	Matter is moot because City produced all nonexempt responsive records and prior in‑camera ruling upheld exemptions	Court: Granting declaratory relief for past conduct was error; claims are moot and CPRA only provides relief to determine disclosure obligations
Whether City’s searches and failure to review bodycam footage violated CPRA (i.e., must watch footage before asserting blanket exemption)	Agency must review/watch footage to segregate nonexempt material and cannot issue blanket exemptions	City reasonably relied on exemption determinations and production of all nonexempt footage made the issue non‑justiciable	Court: Did not reach merits because relief sought under CPRA is limited to disclosure determinations; past‑conduct declarations unauthorized here
Whether CPRA imposes a duty to preserve potentially responsive records (three‑year preservation per CCP §338)	CPRA should be read to require agencies to preserve withheld records for three years to prevent obstruction by blanket withholding	CPRA is not a records‑retention statute; retention governed by separate statutes and neutral retention policies; no duty to impose a litigation hold absent other authority	Court: CPRA contains no preservation requirement; trial court correctly denied declaration that CPRA imposes a three‑year preservation duty (but noted injunctive relief may be possible by other means)
Whether Law Foundation was the prevailing party for fee/costs purposes	Law Foundation argued it vindicated access rights and prevailed on declaratory rulings	City argued matter moot and production rendered relief illusory	Court: Declined to decide prevailing‑party tentative ruling and expressed no opinion on future fee awards; remanded to vacate declaratory rulings

Key Cases Cited

National Lawyers Guild v. City of Hayward, 9 Cal.5th 488 (discussing CPRA purpose and exemptions)
Filarsky v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.4th 419 (CPRA declaratory relief limited to disclosure obligations)
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court, 171 Cal.App.4th 119 (CPRA provides remedy only to determine disclosure of particular records)
City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 74 Cal.App.4th 1008 (standard of appellate review in CPRA matters)
MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose, 106 Cal.App.4th 204 (mootness principle where decision can afford no practical relief)
Stevenson v. City of Sacramento, 55 Cal.App.5th 545 (injunction to preserve records during CPRA litigation possible with undertaking)