City of San Jose v. Super. Ct.
225 Cal.App.4th 75
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2009 Ted Smith requested broad categories of records from the City of San Jose, including voicemails, e‑mails, and text messages sent or received by the mayor, council members, or staff on their private devices/accounts concerning downtown redevelopment.
- The City produced responsive records stored on City accounts/servers but refused to search or produce messages stored only on officials’ private devices/accounts, asserting those are not "public records" under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
- Smith sued for declaratory relief under the CPRA; the superior court granted Smith’s summary judgment and ordered disclosure, reasoning an agency acts only through its officials so their writings are the agency’s writings.
- The City petitioned for writ relief; the Court of Appeal stayed the superior court’s order and reviewed de novo whether writings on private devices/accounts are "public records" (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.).
- The central legal question: does the statutory definition of "public records"—writings "prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency"—reach communications made or stored on private devices/accounts inaccessible to the agency?
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Smith) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether writings sent/received on officials’ private devices/accounts about public business are "public records" under Gov. Code § 6252(e) | Officials act for the agency; their writings about public business are agency writings regardless of storage location | Statute applies only to writings "prepared, owned, used, or retained" by the agency itself; private devices/accounts not within agency custody/control | Held: Not public records under § 6252(e) when stored only on private devices/accounts inaccessible to the agency |
| Whether the superior court properly equated individual officials with the agency for CPRA purposes | Officials are indistinguishable from the agency because agencies act only through officials | Statutory definitions enumerate agencies (cities, boards) and do not include individual officers; Legislature could have included officers if intended | Held: Individuals are not automatically "the agency" for § 6252(e); statute’s plain language governs |
| Whether location-based distinctions (storage on private device vs. agency server) are impermissible under precedent | Content, not location, should determine public character; allowing storage-location to defeat disclosure enables evasion | CPRA’s text focuses on who prepares/owns/uses/retains the writing; courts may not rewrite statute for policy reasons | Held: Location matters under § 6252(e); courts cannot expand statute based on policy—legislature may address evasion |
| Whether courts should order agencies to search private devices/accounts or to assert "constructive possession/control" | Agency can and should be deemed to have constructive control over officials’ work-related communications | Constructive control is not found in § 6252; absent statute, courts should not impose duty to search private devices | Held: Court will not impose duty to search private devices/accounts; such policy choices belong to Legislature or agencies |
Key Cases Cited
- Filarsky v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.4th 419 (interpretation/review of CPRA-related writ practice)
- Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (CPRA/FOIA purpose: disclosure as dominant objective)
- International Federation of Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21 v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 319 (openness/constitutional right of access; balancing with privacy)
- Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.4th 1272 (privacy interests and statutory exemptions under CPRA)
- Commission On Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court (CPOST), 42 Cal.4th 278 (distinguishing location vs. content in exemption analysis)
- San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.3d 762 (discussion of records required or kept in discharge of official duty)
- Regents of Univ. of California v. Superior Court, 222 Cal.App.4th 383 (refusal to expand CPRA by judicially imposing constructive possession beyond statute)