Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court
166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 166
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Reuters sought fund‑level data for the University of California Regents’ investments in Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia via the California Public Records Act (CPRA). The Regents no longer received or retained most individual fund data from those VCs after 2003.
- A 2003 case (CUE) had previously required the Regents to disclose similar fund information when the Regents possessed and used it; after that decision some VCs curtailed providing fund‑level data to the Regents.
- The trial court granted Reuters’ writ, finding the Regents must make “objectively reasonable efforts” to obtain the fund records from Kleiner Perkins and Sequoia and ordered many lodged sealed documents to be treated as public.
- The Regents petitioned the Court of Appeal seeking mandate/prohibition to vacate the trial court order and to require return of documents conditionally lodged under seal.
- The Court of Appeal held the CPRA’s definition of “public records” (§ 6252(e)) requires the records to be prepared, owned, used, or retained by the public agency; therefore records only held by private VCs are not CPRA “public records,” and the court must return lodged documents per Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reuters) | Defendant's Argument (Regents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fund‑level records held only by private VCs are “public records” under CPRA §6252(e) | Records concern the public’s business and the Regents has constructive possession or control, so records should be disclosed | CPRA’s definition requires records be prepared, owned, used, or retained by the public agency; Regents did not do so and thus has no duty to obtain them | Held for Regents: §6252(e) unambiguously excludes records not prepared/owned/used/retained by the agency; Regents need not obtain VC records |
| Whether the trial court may order Regents to use "objectively reasonable efforts" to obtain records from third‑party VCs | Court may compel agency to try to obtain records relevant to public business | No statutory basis to compel Regents to obtain records it never prepared/owned/used/retained | Held for Regents: no statutory duty to obtain such third‑party records under CPRA |
| Whether section 6254.26 requires disclosure of individual fund information even if held by private VCs | The legislative listing of disclosable investment data shows intent to require disclosure of those categories | §6254.26 applies only to information that is within the chapter’s scope—i.e., records that qualify as “public records” under §6252(e) | Held for Regents: §6254.26 does not expand §6252(e)’s definition; disclosable categories still must be records of the agency |
| Whether the trial court properly refused to return lodged sealed documents after using them and applied judicial estoppel to block return under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.551(b)(6) | Reuters defended the court’s consideration of sealed materials and opposed return | Regents argued rule 2.551(b)(6) required return when sealing denied and it consistently sought return; judicial estoppel inapplicable | Held for Regents: trial court abused discretion; rule 2.551(b)(6) requires return of lodged records when sealing is denied and judicial estoppel did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Sierra Club v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 157 (Cal. 2013) (constitutional right of access guides CPRA interpretation)
- Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training v. Superior Court, 42 Cal.4th 278 (Cal. 2007) (privacy/exemption balancing under CPRA; records there were undisputedly agency records)
- United States Dept. of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (U.S. 1989) (FOIA requires an agency to have created/obtained and to control records to treat them as agency records)
- Board of Pilot Commissioners v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.4th 577 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (records of private Bar Pilots not public where not used by public agency)
- Consolidated Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court, 205 Cal.App.4th 697 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (discusses constructive possession/control in CPRA context)
- Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (Cal. 1991) (CPRA modeled on FOIA; legislative and judicial FOIA construction informs CPRA interpretation)