City of San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty.
214 Cal. Rptr. 3d 274
Cal.2017Background
- In 2009 Ted Smith requested 32 categories of records from the City of San Jose, seeking emails and texts about downtown redevelopment, including messages sent/received on personal accounts by the mayor, two council members, and staff.
- The City produced records from government accounts but refused to produce communications from employees’ personal accounts.
- Smith sued under the California Public Records Act (CPRA); the trial court ordered disclosure, but the Court of Appeal issued a writ preventing disclosure.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether writings about public business sent/received/stored in personal accounts qualify as “public records” under CPRA.
- The Court held that communications by public employees about official business can be public records regardless of being in personal accounts, reversing the Court of Appeal and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | City of San Jose's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether writings about public business are public records if created, sent, or stored in personal accounts | Such writings fall within CPRA’s definition of public records regardless of account used; privacy addressed via exemptions and redaction | Communications in personal accounts are not within agency custody/control and thus fall outside CPRA | A writing by an employee relating to public business can be a public record even if in a personal account; agency status arises from the employee preparing/using/retaining the record on the agency’s behalf |
| How to read “prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency” in §6252(e) | “Prepared by” the agency includes writings prepared by employees acting on behalf of the agency | CPRA should be limited to records accessible to the agency (e.g., on agency servers or in offices) | “Prepared by” includes writings by employees conducting agency business; records do not lose public character solely because located in personal accounts |
| Privacy and search intrusiveness concerns when seeking records in personal accounts | Privacy can be protected via case-by-case application of CPRA exemptions, redactions, and procedural safeguards; employees can search their own accounts and provide affidavits for withheld material | Searching personal accounts/devices invades employee privacy and is overly burdensome; categorical exclusion needed | Privacy interests do not warrant categorical exclusion; courts should balance via exemptions and permit procedures (employee searches, affidavits, redaction) to limit intrusion |
| Practical scope of agency’s search/duty to produce when records are in personal accounts | Agencies may rely on employees to search personal accounts and adopt policies to preserve official records; searches must be reasonably calculated to locate responsive documents | Requiring agencies to obtain employees’ personal devices/passwords is unduly burdensome and intrusive | Agencies must make reasonable efforts to obtain responsive records; searches need not be extraordinary or intrusive; courts may accept employee-conducted searches supported by affidavits and agency policies |
Key Cases Cited
- International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 319 (2007) (discusses public access and privacy balance under CPRA)
- Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 278 (2007) (limits on disclosure should not turn on mere location of records)
- Sierra Club v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 157 (2013) (constitutional mandate to broadly construe access provisions)
- Sander v. State Bar of California, 58 Cal.4th 300 (2013) (CPRA creates presumptive right of access to agency records)
- Coronado Police Officers Assn. v. Carroll, 106 Cal.App.4th 1001 (2003) (distinguishing public business from private work product)
- Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, 205 Cal.App.4th 697 (2012) (constructive possession and agency control in disclosure analysis)
- Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City, 220 Cal.App.4th 1385 (2013) (contractual ownership/right to possess affects disclosure duty)
- Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Office of Science & Technology Policy, 827 F.3d 145 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (agency records do not lose status simply because an official takes them off-site)
- Ethyl Corp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 25 F.3d 1241 (4th Cir. 1994) (approves employee-conducted searches and segregation of personal vs. agency records)
- Grand Cent. Partnership, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473 (2d Cir. 1999) (affidavits can justify withholding personal materials and support adequacy of search)