In City of Gilroy v. Superior Court (Law Foundation of Silicon Valley), published October 23, 2023, the Sixth District Court of Appeal issued writs directing the trial court to vacate its order in a California Public Records Act proceeding. In 2018, the real party in interest Foundation requested public records from the city concerning homeless encampment sweeps. The city's response stated in part that the city's law enforcement records concerning the sweep were exempt from disclosure under the CPRA. It did not provide bodycam footage from officers who participated in sweeps in response to the Foundation's 2018 requests, and did not search for such footage, because the city attorney determined the footage was exempt. In 2019, when the Foundation discovered that all homeless encampment sweeps are videotaped, the Foundation submitted a request for all video and audio recordings made during sweeps from 2016 to 2019. It later agreed to limit the request to January 2019 to the present. The city denied production of the bodycam footage on the ground that it was exempt. The Foundation stated an intent to petition the court to compel production of the footage. In response, the city voluntarily placed a litigation hold on the footage to preserve it past the city's one-year retention period. The city then released bodycam footage from encampment sweeps that did not relate to citations or arrests. It withheld from disclosure 10 minutes of bodycam footage in which officers issued citations. The city stated that no other bodycam footage from 2016 to 2019 was in its possession. The Foundation petitioned the trial court. The trial court viewed the 10 minutes of withheld footage in camera, and determined it was properly withheld as exempt. In response to an amended petition, the trial court denied the petition to compel production of footage, and granted declaratory relief, declaring that the city violated the CPRA by conducting an inadequate search in response to the 2018 CPRA requests; that the city had a duty to review the video to determine whether footage was exempt and could be produced, before issuing a blanket exemption, and explain why any withheld records were exempt; and that the city's CPRA response was untimely. The trial court denied the Foundation's request for a declaration that the city had an obligation to preserve records, and for an injunction preventing the city from destroying any footage for three years after receiving a CPRA request. Both sides petitioned the appellate court for writ relief.
The appellate court ruled the trial court erred by issuing the declaratory relief. Once the trial court ruled that the city had provided all nonexempt footage in its possession and had properly withheld exempt records, the Foundation's claims under the CPRA, including its claims regarding the city's responses to past CPRA requests, was moot. While the trial court had power under the CPRA to issue declaratory relief regarding an agency's obligation to disclose records, neither the CPRA nor the general declaratory relief statute, Code of Civil Procedure 1060, provides for declaratory relief as to moot CPRA claims, or responses to past CPRA claims. Declaratory relief operates only prospectively and not for redress of past wrongs. The appellate court rejected the Foundation's petition for a declaration that the city violated the CPRA by failing to preserve past recordings and for an injunction that the city retain recordings for three years. The CPRA is not a records retention statute. Other statutes impose particular retention periods for bodycam recordings and other recordings, and the city complied with those statutes.
Comments