California Supreme Court Opens The Door To Declaratory Relief In Public Records Act Claims

The Public Records Act grants the public access to records held by state and local agencies. In City of Gilroy v. Superior Court (January 15, 2026, S282937), the California Supreme Court opens the door to litigation based on not just the disclosure of records, but on policies and practices that may interfere with the disclosure.

Background

On January 15, 2026, the California Supreme Court issued their opinion on the consolidated appeals regarding two public records requests submitted to the City of Gilroy, in 2018 and 2019. The Court found that, in some circumstances, a court could provide declaratory relief on a matter where it is uncontested that all responsive, nonexempt records have been disclosed. The court also found that the Public Records Act does not contain a record retention requirement and therefore does not impose a duty on a public agency to preserve responsive records that have been withheld as exempt.

The Law Foundation submitted two public records requests, one in 2018 and one in 2019, to the City of Gilroy related to the City's Zero Tolerance Policy regarding the homeless and Quality of Life violations. The city responded to both requests, disclosing some records and withholding others. Plaintiff did not object to the 2018 final responses but disputed the withholding of records from the 2019 request, specifically bodycam video footage from the homeless encampment sweeps. The Law Foundation notified the City that it intended to file a petition for writ of mandate seeking a court order to compel the release of the videos and audio that had been withheld. The City voluntarily placed a litigation hold to preserve the footage beyond the one-year retention period as defined by their official retention policy while the parties tried to resolve the matter.

After some discussion, the City released some of the disputed footage, however, the City maintained their position that two responsive footages where citations were issued were exempt. The City also informed the Plaintiff that there were no other responsive, nonexempt records to disclose as all footage prior to 2018 was destroyed pursuant to the City's records retention policy. Plaintiff sought a writ of mandate, alleging the City failed to comply with their obligations under the CPRA and for a declaration of the rights of the parties when, at the time of the Plaintiff's request, the City of Gilroy failed to produce responsive records that existed at the time and were subsequently destroyed.

The trial court granted partial declaratory relief related to the obligation of the City to disclose specific records. The court also found that there was no relief available with respect to the propriety of the City's past conduct as the CPRA does not provide for declaratory relief other than to determine a public agency's obligation to disclose records. The trial court also concluded that there was no retention requirement imposed by the CPRA.

Both parties appealed. The City appealed the declaratory relief determination, arguing that declaratory relief was inappropriate as the court did not order production of records and no additional responsive, nonexempt records could be produced. The Court of Appeal agreed, concluding that the matter was moot and declaratory relief was unavailable in these circumstances because the CPRA provides no remedy other than to determine whether a particular record or class of records must be disclosed. Where it is uncontested that there are no other records that can be disclosed, there is no further relief that can be ordered by the court.

The Law Foundation sought a review of the determination that there was no record retention requirement imposed by the CPRA. The Court of Appeal rejected this position, stating that the CPRA lacks any provision pertaining to record retention.

Declaratory relief

The Supreme Court disagreed with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals regarding the availability of declaratory relief. Declaratory relief is available when an agency's actions have some likelihood of affecting future requests for public records or future conduct relating to such requests, even if it is uncontested that there are no existing nonexempt records left to disclose. While the Court declined to list all the circumstances for which declaratory relief under the CPRA may be available, the focus of the discussion was to provide a court with an opportunity to address circumstances where disputed conduct which the trial court found violated the CPRA has some likelihood of recurring. The Court found that declaratory relief is appropriate to provide guidance to the parties and resolve their ongoing disputes. It is also an appropriate path to challenge an agency's policies or practices and allows a court to review the actions of the agency that voluntarily discloses records but maintains their authority to withhold similar records in response to future requests.

Retention of documents

The Supreme Court agreed there is no record retention aspect to the CPRA. After looking at the legislative history and the language of the Act, they found nothing in the CPRA statutes that imposes a duty to preserve documents responsive to a public records request that have been withheld as exempt for any period of time. The absence of any retention requirement within the CPRA suggests that the Legislature did not intend to include one. The Court identified other statutes that provide retention requirements, including litigation hold requirements, which would address any concerns regarding the possible destruction of records while a CPRA request is pending. In addition, agencies adopt records retention policies which generally govern retention periods.

Take away

Public agencies need to review their current policies and procedures, both in how they process Public Records Act requests and their document retention policies. Policies and practices that delay or interfere with the disclosure of responsive, nonexempt documents should be reviewed and revised in light of this ruling. Public agencies should also review and revise any record retention policies, ensuring they comply with current law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.