Hacker Chronicles 2/HACKER2.BIN/811.CA2.CAP

Text File | 1993-10-28 | 193KB | 3,442 lines

                        Cal Gov Code prec @ 6250 (1993)



 NOTES:
CHAPTER CROSS REFERENCES:
   Inspection of campaign statements and reports of lobbyists: Gov
C @ 81008.
   Exemption for register of small business loans: Fin C @ 3839.
   Exemption for Board of Directors of State Compensation Insurance
Fund: Ins C @ 11770.5.
   Inspection and release of payroll records of contractor or
subcontractor: Lab C @ 1776(h).
   Protection of trade secrets and confidential information
obtained during safety inspection: Lab C @ 6322.
   Application of chapter to oil and gas records and reports: Pub
Res C @ 3234.
   Records of any owner or operator of well of geothermal resources
as public records: Pub Res C @ 3752.
   Application to the State Energy Resources Conservation and
Development Commission: Pub Res C @ 25223.
   Inspection of certain vehicular records and accident reports:
Veh C @ 1808.

CHAPTER COLLATERAL REFERENCES:
   Witkin & Epstein, Criminal Law (2d ed) @ 1796.
   Witkin Evidence (3d ed) @@ 901, 945, 1101, 1229, 1249, 1253,
                              1260, 1637.
   Witkin Procedure (3d ed) Trial @@ 121, 122.
   Witkin Summary (9th ed) Constitutional Law @@ 466, 472, Equity
@ 108,

Husband & Wife @ 21,
Partnership @ 9,
Taxation @ 213,
Workers' Compensation @ 20.
   Cal Jur 3d (Rev) Consumer and Borrower Protection Laws @@ 315,
316, 318, 321,
Criminal Law @@ 1994, 2848, District and Municipal Attorneys @ 19.
   Cal Jur 3d Assault and Other Wilful Torts @ 112, Oil and Gas @
215, Records and Recording Laws @@ 6 et seq., Wills @ 235.
   Cal Trial Handbook 2d (BW, 1987) @ 2:30.
   Cal Practice (Rev) Ch 20 Discovery Proceedings.
   Am Jur 2d Records and Recording Laws @@ 12 et seq.
   Fed Proc, L Ed, Freedom of Information @@ 38:1 et seq.
   Ehrman & Flavin, Taxing California Property (3d ed) @ 15:01.
   B-W Cal Civ Prac, Procedure @ 31:97.

LAW REVIEW ARTICLES:
   Secrecy and access to administrative records.  44 CLR 314.
   Organizations and administrative practice.  26 Hast LJ 89.
   Confidentiality of Juvenile court proceedings.  10 Stan LR 508.
   Prisoners' rights--discovery of inmate petitioner's central
file.  25 Stan LR 27.
   Governmental privileges as roadblock to effective discovery;
public records. 7 USF LR 283.
   California Criminal Discovery: Eliminating anachronistic
limitations imposed on the defendant.  9 USF LR 259.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS:
   A city police department may not allow public inspection of a
written report filed by a county welfare fraud investigator
regarding the failure of a named individual to receive food stamps
that had been mailed to him.  64 Ops Atty Gen 756.
   The California Department of Justice must provide information in
its child abuse files maintained pursuant to Pen Code, @ 11170, to
a child protective agency submitting a report under Pen Code, @
11169, or to a district attorney who has requested notification of
a suspected child abuse case. The Department is not obligated to
furnish this information to other persons or agencies. The
information may be used by the Department in furtherance of
investigating suspected child abuse cases and of carrying out the
purpose of the Child Abuse Reporting Law, namely, the protection of
children.  65 Ops Atty Gen 335.
   A district attorney may disclose to a commercial credit bureau,
without violating the provisions of confidentiality contained in W
& I Code, @@ 11478 and 10850, the fact that an absent parent is
delinquent in child support payments if such disclosure is made to
enforce the obligation to support.  65 Ops Atty Gen 373.
   California Student Aid Commission may (1) distribute list of
names of students who have defaulted or who are delinquent in
payments on guaranteed student loans, to schools participating in
State Guaranteed Loan Program so that those schools can more easily
collect loans; (2) advise lender participating in State Guaranteed
Loan Program whether applicant for guaranteed student loan is in
default on prior loan; and (3) advise lenders participating in
State Guaranteed Loan Program of a school's default rate. 67 Ops
Atty Gen 415.
   Records of amounts and reasons for performance awards granted to
executive managers of city are subject to disclosure under the
Public Records Act.  68 Ops Atty Gen 73.
   Lawyer-client privilege and work-product rule, when relied on by
public officer, do not automatically terminate with settlement or
adjudication of underlying claim.  71 Ops Atty Gen 5.
   Plans and specifications of local detention facilities are
generally not required to be disclosed to members of public under
Public Records Act.  73 Ops Atty Gen 236.

ANNOTATIONS:
   Right to inspect motor vehicle records.  84 ALR2d 1261.
   What preliminary data gathered by public departments or
officials constitute "public records" within the right of access,
inspection, and copying by private persons.  85 ALR2d 1105.
   Student organization registration statement, filed with public
school or state university or college, as open to inspection by
public.  37 ALR3d 1311.



   Validity, construction, and application of statutory provisions
relating to public access to police records.  82 ALR3d 19.
   Restricting access to records of disciplinary proceedings
against attorneys. 83 ALR3d 749.
   Discovery or inspection of state bar records of complaints
against or investigations of attorneys.  83 ALR3d 777.
   Restricting access to judicial records of concluded adoption
proceedings.  83 ALR3d 800.
   Restricting access to judicial records of pending adoption
proceedings.  83 ALR3d 824.
   Accused's right to discovery or inspection of records of prior
complaints against, or similar personnel records of, peace officer
involved in the case. 86 ALR3d 1170.
   State or municipal liability for invasion of privacy.  87 ALR3d
145.
   Payroll records of individual government employees as subject to
disclosure to public, 100 ALR3d 699.
   What constitutes preliminary drafts or notes provided by or for
state or local governmental agency, or intra-agency memorandums,
exempt from disclosure or inspection under state freedom of
information acts.  26 ALR4th 639.
   What constitutes personal matters exempt from disclosure by
invasion of privacy exemption under state freedom of information
act.  26 ALR4th 666.
   What are "records" of agency which must be made available under
state freedom of information act.  27 ALR4th 680.
   What constitutes an agency subject to application of state
freedom of information act.  27 ALR4th 742.
   What are inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters
exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USCS
@ 552(b)(5)).  7 ALR Fed 855.
   Scope of judicial review under Freedom of Information Act (5
USCS @ 552(a)(3)), of administrative agency's withholding of
records. 7 ALR Fed 876.
   Use of affidavits to substantiate federal agency's claim of
exemption from request for documents under Freedom of Information
Act (5 USCS @ 552).  55 ALR Fed 266.
   What action may be required of federal agency in suit by
individual to have records amended, pursuant to @ 3 of the Privacy
Act of 1974 (5 USCS @ 552(g)(1)(A)).  55 ALR Fed 338.
   What are "enforcement proceedings" within Freedom of Information
Act exemption from disclosure of investigatory records that would
interfere with enforcement proceedings (5 USCS @ 552(b)(7)(a)).  55
ALR Fed 583.
   What materials are exempted from disclosure under Privacy Act's
exemption of "investigatory material" contained in 5 USCS @
552(k)(5). 55 ALR Fed 903.
   Pro se litigant as entitled to award of attorneys' fees for
value of his own services rendered in lawsuit under Freedom of
Information Act (5 USCS @ 552). 56 ALR Fed 573.

   Meaning of term "agency" for purposes of Freedom of Information
Act (5 USCS @ 552).  57 ALR Fed 295.
   Use of Freedom of Information Act (5 USCS @ 552) as substitute
for, or as means of, supplementing discovery procedures available
to litigants in federal civil, criminal, or administrative
proceedings.  57 ALR Fed 903.
   What constitutes "confidential source" within Freedom of
Information Act exemption permitting nondisclosure of identity of
confidential source and, in specified instances, of confidential
information furnished only by confidential source (5 USCS sec.
552(b)(7)(D)).  59 ALR Fed 550.
   Power of court under 5 USCS sec. 552(a)(4)(B) to examine agency
records in camera to determine propriety of withholding records.
60 ALR Fed 416.


                           CHAPTER NOTES OF DECISIONS

   The trial court properly denied a writ of mandate that would
have required the Department of Human Resources Development to
provide the director of a county legal aid society with copies of
a seven volume loose-leaf work containing guidelines for use in
determining a claimant's eligibility for unemployment insurance
benefits, amendments thereto, and unemployment insurance notices.
While it would appear from a literal reading of the Public Records
Act (Gov. Code, @@ 6250--6260) that the right to inspect public
records and the right to receive copies is coextensive, such a
construction would go far beyond the act's intent and purpose of
providing access to governmental records while protecting the
individual's right to privacy. Properly interpreted, the act
permits plaintiff and others similarly situated to have reasonable
access to the desired documents and to secure copies of specific
documents subject to the imposition of reasonable restrictions on
general requests for voluminous classes of material.  Rosenthal v
Hansen (1973) 34 CA3d 754, 110 Cal Rptr 257.
   It may not be successfully argued that the California Public
Records Act is to be broadly interpreted in favor of disclosure and
strictly construed against confidentiality. Neither that act, nor
the federal Freedom of Information Act, on which it was modeled,
directs such a difference in interpretation. The California act
mandates nothing other than unreserved fulfillment of the statutory
objectives, and it evidences a legislative policy of disclosure,
yet one which is mindful of individual privacy.  Black Panther
Party v Kehoe (1974) 42 CA3d 645, 117 Cal Rptr 106.
   In an action in which plaintiffs sought, pursuant to the Public
Records Act (  Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.) and to the due process
clause, to inspect and make copies of the rules and regulations of
the Department of the California Highway Patrol governing the
investigation and disposition of citizens' complaints of police
misconduct, the facts that prior to trial the department had
promised to make its complaint procedure available to the public,
and actually sent to plaintiffs a copy thereof prior to the hearing
of their appeal from the judgment in favor of the department, did
not render plaintiffs' cause of action moot, where there was no
stipulation by their counsel that the department had provided all
the information sought by plaintiffs, where, furthermore, at least
one plaintiff sought to know what procedures were in effect prior
to those shown in the documents sent to them, and where, in view of
the department's position that publicizing the procedures was
purely voluntary on their part, similar disputes could recur if the
department were in future to rescind its decision and plaintiffs'
prayer for declaratory relief, seeking a determination that such
disclosure was positively required by the Public Records Act, was
left unresolved.  Cook v Craig (1976) 55 CA3d 773, 127 Cal Rptr
712.
   In an action in which plaintiffs sought, pursuant to the Public
Records Act (  Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.) and to the due process
clause of the Constitution, to inspect and make copies of the rules
and regulations of the Department of the California Highway Patrol
governing the investigation and disposition of citizens' complaints
of police conduct, the conclusion by the appellate court, on appeal
by plaintiffs from a judgment against them, that the department was
required by the Public Records Act to disclose its procedural
regulations for citizen complaints, rendered moot the question of
whether such disclosure was also required under the due process
clause.  Cook v Craig (1976) 55 CA3d 773, 127 Cal Rptr 712.
   Under the general policy of the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code,
@ 6250  et seq.) favoring disclosure, support for a refusal to
disclose information must be found, if at all, among the specific
exceptions to the general policy that are enumerated in the Act.
Cook v Craig (1976) 55 CA3d 773, 127 Cal Rptr 712.
   If a record is a public record, all persons have access thereto
under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, @@ 6250--6261).
The subject of the particular records sought does not, because he
is personally affected, have any greater right than any other
person to examine the records. Conversely, a subject person has no
right under the act to prevent disclosure of the record to any
other person.  Los Angeles Police Dept. v Superior Court (1977) 65
CA3d 661, 135 Cal Rptr 575.
   The California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, @@ 6250--6261)
itself does not undertake to prescribe what type of information a
public agency may gather, does not designate the type of records
sought agency may keep, and does not provide a method for
correcting such records. Its sole function is to provide for
disclosure.  Los Angeles Police Dept. v Superior Court (1977) 65
CA3d 661, 135 Cal Rptr 575.
   The mere disclosure to litigants in a civil action by a city
through its jury commissioner of plaintiff's identity as a
prospective juror, in compliance with  Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.
and absent any knowledge or intent as to how the information would
be used by others, did not violate either a state or federal
constitutional right of privacy. Neither did such disclosure
violate plaintiff's constitutional rights of free association and
due process. Moreover, the fact the disclosure of plaintiff's
identity as a prospective juror was made with knowledge that the
litigants would investigate and compile information about
plaintiff's private life did not render the disclosure
unconstitutional. In light of the statutory duty of disclosure
under  Gov. Code, @ 6250 et seq., the city's knowledge or intent at
the time of the disclosure was irrelevant.  Leham v San Francisco
(1978) 80 CA3d 309, 145 Cal Rptr 493.
   The refusal of the trial court in a civil action to order the
litigants to disclose any private information gathered about a
prospective juror following the disclosure of his identity by the
jury commissioner pursuant to Gov. Code,  @ 6250  et seq. did not
impose liability on a city or violate the prospective juror's
constitutional rights of privacy, freedom of association or due
process, where at the time the prospective juror made his demand
there had been no judicial determination that the litigants had
done anything improper, where there was no allegation that the
court even knew what specific information the litigants had
gathered about the prospective juror, and where the court had no
basis for knowing what information it should order the litigants to
disclose. Since the jury commissioner acted properly in initially
disclosing the identity of the prospective juror, that action did
not impose any duty on the court to order the disclosure of any
information later gathered by the litignats.  Lehman v San
Francisco (1978) 80 CA3d 309, 145 Cal Rptr 493.
   Findings of fact are not required in an action for disclosure of
documents under the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et
seq.) Northern Cal. Police Practices Project v Craig (1979) 90 CA3d
116, 153 Cal Rptr 173.

   In an action under the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250 et
seq.), to compel the disclosure of various documents utilized by
the California Highway Patrol in training its officers, the trial
court's refusal to edit nonsensitive materials contained in the
documents sought and order them disclosed constituted reversible
error. Where nonexempt materials are not inextricably intertwined
with exempt materials and are otherwise reasonably segregable
therefrom, segregation is required to serve the objective of the
Public Records Act to make public records available for public
inspection and copying unless a particular statute makes them
exempt.  Northern Cal. Police Practices Project v Craig (1979) 90
CA3d 116, 153 Cal Rptr 173.
   Whether a disclosure of public records is warranted or
unwarranted under the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et
seq.) is a question of fact for the trial court to determine by
looking at the attendant circumstances. In order to find an abuse
of discretion, it is necessary to find that the decision was not
supported by substantial evidence.  Braun v City of Taft (1984, 5th
Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654.
   Under the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.),
where nonexempt materials are not inextricably intertwined with
exempt materials and are otherwise reasonably segregable therefrom,
segregation is required to serve the objectives of the act to make
public records available for public inspection and copying unless
a particular statute makes them exempt.  Braun v City of Taft
(1984, 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654.

   In a declaratory relief action by a newspaper seeking to inspect
or obtain a copy of a police report of an investigation of a high
school principal for his alleged failure to report an incident of
child abuse, the trial court erred in ruling that the report was
absolutely privileged under Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f), which
exempts from disclosure records of complaints to or investigations
by any state or local police agency. Under the California Public
Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.), the newspaper was
entitled to a copy of the report if no confidential sources would
be revealed, disclosure would not interfere with enforcement
proceedings, no person would be deprived of a fair trial, release
of the report would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy, secret police investigative techniques or procedures would
not be revealed, and the life or physical safety of law enforcement
personnel would not be endangered. Accordingly, the trial court was
required to conduct an in camera inspection and to release the
report or parts thereof, or an accurate edited summary, unless the
court found disclosure would result in an invasion of statutorily
protected areas of information.  South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v
City of Oceanside (1984, 4th Dist) 160 Cal App 3d 261, 206 Cal Rptr
527.
   The California Public Records Act (CPRA) ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et
seq.) was modeled on the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
(5 U.S.C. @ 552), enacted in 1967, and thus the CPRA can draw on
its federal counterpart, the FOIA, for judicial construction and
legislative history.  South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v City of
Oceanside (1984, 4th Dist) 160 Cal App 3d 261, 206 Cal Rptr 527.

   The California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.),
like the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. @ 552), on
which it was modeled, reflects a general public policy of
disclosure that can only be accomplished by narrow construction of
the statutory exemptions.  South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v City of
Oceanside (1984, 4th Dist) 160 Cal App 3d 261, 206 Cal Rptr 527.
   Although access to information under the Public Records Act (
Gov.  Code, @  6250  et seq.) is a fundamental right to which all
are entitled, nowhere does the act intimate that access to bulk
records by commercial users may not be circumscribed by reasonable
conditions regarding format and price. Shippen v Department of
Motor Vehicles (1984, 3d Dist) 161 Cal App 3d 1119, 208 Cal Rptr
13.
   Grounds to deny disclosure of information, sought under the
California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.), must
be found, if at all, among the specific exceptions to the general
policy that are enumerated in the act. The general policy of
disclosure reflected in the act can only be accomplished by narrow
construction of the statutory exemptions.  Citizens for a Better
Environment v Department of Food & Agriculture (1985, 3d Dist) 171
Cal App 3d 704, 217 Cal Rptr 504.
   The California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.)
was modeled after the federal Freedom of Information Act. Thus, the
judicial construction and legislative history of the federal act
serve to illuminate the interpretation of its California
counterpart. Despite a difference in wording, the purpose and
subject matter of the federal and California exemptions are largely
the same.  Citizens for a Better Environment v Department of Food
& Agriculture (1985, 3d Dist) 171 Cal App 3d 704, 217 Cal Rptr 504.
   The California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.),
modeled on the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. @ 552),
reflects a general policy of disclosure of public records and
information subject to narrowly drawn statutory exemptions. The
provisions of @ 6250 et seq. represent the Legislature's balancing
of the narrower privacy interest of individuals with the public's
fundamental right to know about the conduct of public business. The
entire legislative history of @ 6250 et seq. and similar "open
government" legislation reflects a paramount concern with
implementing the public's right to know about the conduct of public
business.  City of Santa Rosa v Press Democrat (1986, 1st Dist) 187
Cal App 3d 1315, 232 Cal Rptr 445.
   Both the Open Meeting Act (Gov. Code, @ 11120 et seq.) and the
Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.) accommodate the
protections of Rev. & Tax. Code, @ 11655 (requirement that State
Board of Equalization keep any submitted information and documents
relating to a taxpayer's business affairs secret). Business affairs
information and records under the private railroad car tax law
(Rev. & Tax. Code, @ 11201 et seq.) are exempt from disclosure
under both acts. General American Transp. Corp. v State Bd. of
Equalization (1987, 1st Dist) 193 Cal App 3d 1175, 238 Cal Rptr
865.

   The California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.)
does not create a right of public access to governmental
information which justifies a grand jury's disclosure of raw
evidentiary material in its report. The act exempts from its
operation judicial agencies established in Cal. Const., art. VI;
and, while the grand jury is nowhere mentioned in art. VI, the
grand jury's nature as a judicial entity and the important public
interest requiring its institutional secrecy are persuasive
indications that the Legislature must have intended the grand jury
to be similarly exempted from the act's provisions. McClatchy
Newspapers v Superior Court of Fresno County (1988) 44 Cal 3d 1162,
245 Cal Rptr 774, 751 P2d 1329.
   The California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, $ 6250 et seq.)
was modeled on the 1967 federal Freedom of Information Act, and the
judicial construction and legislative history of the federal act
serve to illuminate the interpretation of its California
counterpart.  Williams v Superior Court (1992, 4th Dist) 3 Cal App
4th 1292, 5 Cal Rptr 2d 142, review gr.
   The California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.)
is modeled upon the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. @
552), and a court may look to the federal act's legislative history
and judicial construction as an aid in interpreting the state act.
State Bd. of Equalization v Superior Court (1992, 3rd Dist) 10 Cal
App 4th 1177, 13 Cal Rptr 2d 342.

To be able to browse preceding or succeeding code sections, enter
B.  The first page of the document you are currently viewing will
be displayed in FULL.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


                               GOVERNMENT CODE
                               TITLE 1. GENERAL
                          DIVISION 7. Miscellaneous
                   CHAPTER 3.5. Inspection of Public Records

                          Cal  Gov Code @ 6250  (1993)

@ 6250.  Legislative finding and declaration

   In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right
of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to
information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a
fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.


HISTORY:
   Added Stats 1968 ch 1473 @ 39; Amended Stats 1970 ch 575 @ 1.

NOTES:
AMENDMENTS:
   1970 Amendment: Substituted "person in" for "citizen of" after
"necessary right of".

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S OPINIONS:
   Public records--privilege. 1968 AJ 7151.

COLLATERAL REFERENCES:
   Witkin Evidence 2d @ 878A.
   Cal Jur 3d (Rev) Criminal Law @ 2848.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS:
   Requirement that Department of Education release, on district by
district basis, results of uniform tests given in grades 1, 2 and
3 under Miller-Unruh Basic Reading Act of 1965.  52 Ops Atty Gen
15.
   Confidentiality of veneral disease records, compiled and kept by
local health departments pursuant to regulation of State Department
of Public Health; right of health officer receiving subpoena for
such record to assert privilege pursuant to Ev C @ 1040.  53 Ops
Atty Gen 10.
   Public inspection of violation notices issued by local health
departments pursuant to California Pure Foods Act and Food Crop
Growing and Harvesting Sanitation Act.  53 Ops Atty Gen 258.
   Propriety of using financial disclosure statements, filed
pursuant to Governmental Conflict of Interest Act, in same manner
as any other public record.  57 Ops Atty Gen 252.
   The California Housing Finance Agency is neither required by the
California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, @@ 6250 et seq.) or by
the Information Practices Act of 1977 (Civ. Code, @@ 1798 et seq.),
from providing the Carpenter Funds Administrative Office with the
name, social security number, hourly wage, deductions from salary,
trade of, and total number of hours worked by each carpenter
employed on a project which the California Housing Finance Agency
finances.  64 Ops Atty Gen 576.

ANNOTATIONS:
   State freedom of information act requests: right to receive
information in particular medium or format.  86 ALR4th 786.


                               NOTES OF DECISIONS

   Where there is no contrary statute or countervailing public
policy, the right to inspect public records must be freely allowed.
In this regard the term "public policy" means anything which tends
to undermine that sense of security for individual rights, whether
of personal liberty or private property, which any citizen ought to
feel has a tendency to be injurious to the public or the public
good.  Craemer v Superior Court (1968) 265 CA2d 216, 71 Cal Rptr
193.
   The California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.)
was enacted in 1968 to safeguard the accountability of government
to the public, for secrecy is antithetical to a democratic system
of "government of the people, by the people [and] for the people."
San Gabriel Tribune v Superior Court (1983, 2d Dist) 143 Cal App 3d
762, 192 Cal Rptr 415.
   The California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.),
modeled after the 1967 federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),
can draw on its federal counterpart for judicial construction and
legislative history. Moreover, the act, like the FOIA, reflects a
general policy of disclosure that can only be accomplished by
narrow construction of the statutory exemptions. San Gabriel
Tribune v Superior Court (1983, 2d Dist) 143 Cal App 3d 762, 192
Cal Rptr 415.
   Although Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (c), exempts personnel,
medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute
an unwarranted invasion of privacy, from disclosure under the
Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.), the Legislature,
by using the word "files," did not intend to exempt the entire file
and thus to prohibit the selective disclosure of certain documents
from the file. In view of  Gov. Code, @ 6250,  which states that
"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of the right of
individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access to
information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a
fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state" and
the policy favoring disclosure of public records, it is unlikely
that the Legislature intended such an all or nothing approach.
Braun v City of Taft (1984, 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal
Rptr 654.

                               GOVERNMENT CODE
                               TITLE 1. GENERAL
                          DIVISION 7. Miscellaneous
                   CHAPTER 3.5. Inspection of Public Records
                           Cal Gov Code @ 6252 (1993)

@ 6252.  Definition of terms

   As used in this chapter:

   (a) "State agency" means every state office, officer,
department, division, bureau, board, and commission or other state
body or agency, except those agencies provided for in Article IV
(except Section 20 thereof) or Article VI of the California
Constitution.

   (b) "Local agency" includes a county; city, whether general law
or chartered; city and county; school district; municipal
corporation; district; political subdivision; or any board,
commission or agency thereof; other local public agency; or
nonprofit organizations of local governmental agencies and
officials which are supported solely by public funds.

   (c) "Person" includes any natural person, corporation,
partnership, firm, or association.

   (d) "Public records" includes any writing containing information
relating to the conduct of the public's business prepared, owned,
used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of
physical form or characteristics. "Public records" in the custody
of, or maintained by, the Governor's office means any writing
prepared on or after January 6, 1975.

   (e) "Writing" means handwriting, typewriting, printing,
photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording
upon any form of communication or representation, including
letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination
thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes,
photographic films and prints, magnetic or punched cards, discs,
drums, and other documents.

   (f) "Member of the public" means any person, except a member,
agent, officer, or employee of a federal, state, or local agency
acting within the scope of his or her membership, agency, office,
or employment.

HISTORY:
   Added Stats 1968 ch 1473 @ 39; Amended Stats 1970 ch 575 @ 2;
Stats 1975 ch 1246 @ 2; Stats 1981 ch 968 @ 1.
   Amended Stats 1991 ch 181 @ 1 (AB 788).

NOTES:
AMENDMENTS:
   1970 Amendment: (1) Substituted "any writing" for "all papers,
maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints,
magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, and other documents"
before "containing" in subd (d); and (2) added subd (e).
   1975 Amendment: Added the second sentence in subd (d).
   1981 Amendment: Added (1) "body or" in subd (a); (2) the commas
after "custody of" and after "maintained by" in subd (d); and (3)
subd (f).
   1991 Amendment: Amended subd (b) by (1) deleting "or" after
"agency thereof;"; and (2) adding "; or nonprofit organizations of
local governmental agencies and officials which are supported
solely by public funds".

CROSS REFERENCES:
   Use by "local agency", as defined by this section, of
confidential information supplied by applicant for appointment and
commission as a notary public: Gov C @ 8201.5.
   Writing received, owned, used, or retained by the State
Department of Health Services in connection with the quality of
long-term health facilities as public record within the meaning of
subd (d) of this section: H & S C @ 1439.

COLLATERAL REFERENCES:
   Witkin Evidence (3d ed) @ 901, 1250, 1251, 1578.
   Witkin Procedure (3d ed) Trial @ 121.
   Witkin Summary (9th ed) Constitutional Law @ 472.
   Witkin Summary (8th ed) p 862.
   Cal Jur 3d (Rev) Consumer and Borrower Protection Laws @ 315.
   Cal Jur 3d Records and Recording Laws @ 8.
   Ehrman & Flavin, Taxing California Property (3d ed) @ 15:01.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS:
   Confidentiality of certain details and requirement to disclose
information in proposed prepaid health plans.  58 Ops Atty Gen 371.
   Derogatory material contained in personnel file of school
teacher constituting a public record of confidential nature may not
be destroyed by governing board of local school district without
complying with provisions of Ed C @ 1034; unauthorized destruction
constituting violation of Gov C @ 6200.  58 Ops Atty Gen 422.
   Documents submitted in support of application for financing
through the California Pollution Control Financing Authority are
public records subject to inspection by the public, and assurances
of confidentiality cannot be given by the authority. Documents
submitted with such assurances may be returned, subject to
requirements of the State Records Management Act.  58 Ops Atty Gen
629.


                               NOTES OF DECISIONS

   In this state the terms "public records" and "public writings"
are used synonymously.  Craemer v Superior Court (1968) 265 CA2d
216, 71 Cal Rptr 193.
   The procedural regulations of the California Highway Patrol
governing the investigation of citizen complaints concerning
conduct of personnel in that department come within the meaning of
"Public Records" in Gov. Code, @ 6252, subd (d), defining terms
used in the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.), and
since such regulations are not themselves "records of complaints"
or "investigations" within the meaning of Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd
(f), and are thus not exempt from disclosure thereunder, or under
Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd (k), they are required by the Public
Records Act to be made available by the department for public
inspection and copying.  Cook v Craig (1976) 55 CA3d 773, 127 Cal
Rptr 712.
   The scope of the term "public records" as used in Gov. Code, @
6252, subd (d), defining terms in the Public Records Act ( Gov.
Code, @ 6250 et seq.), does not depend upon the scope of the term
as used in cases interpreting it in the context of other statutes.
Cook v Craig (1976) 55 CA3d 773, 127 Cal Rptr 712.
   In actions seeking reimbursement from the State of California
and the California Highway Patrol for allegedly illegal charges
made for copies of traffic accident reports and an injunction
against such practice, the trial court properly sustained
defendants' demurrers, where, though the reports were public
records within the meaning of Gov. Code, @ 6252, subd. (d), and
thus subject to the limitation of Gov. Code, @ 6257, as to charges
for copies, the complaints failed to allege that plaintiffs were
persons entitled, under Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f), and Veh.
Code, @ 20012, to such otherwise confidential information. However,
the court should have granted plaintiffs leave to amend to allege
such entitlement if the facts permitted.  Vallejos v California
Highway Patrol (1979) 89 CA3d 781, 152 Cal Rptr 846.
   Financial data supplied by a private waste disposal company to
a city which the city relied on in granting a rate increase to the
waste disposal company under the city's contract with the waste
disposal company for the collection of waste and garbage within the
city limits constituted "public records" within the meaning of Gov.
Code, @ 6252, subd. (d), defining public records, and was therefore
subject to public inspection under Gov. Code, @ 6253, unless
otherwise exempted from disclosure. The city had a contractual
relationship with the disposal company. The city delegated its duty
of trash collection to the disposal company, but still retained the
power and duty to monitor the disposal company's performance of its
delegated duties, under the express terms of the contract. There
was no question that the disposal company was providing a service
to the residents of the city, by way of a contract made between it
and the city. Assurance of confidentiality by the city to the
disposal company that the data would remain private was not
sufficient to convert what was a public record into a private
record.  San Gabriel Tribune v Superior Court (1983, 2d Dist) 143
Cal App 3d 762, 192 Cal Rptr 415.
   Under the California Public Records Act defining public records
as "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of
the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any
state or local agency" (Gov.  Code, @ 6252, subd. (d)), and
defining local agency to include a county, a county's claim
settlement committee was a "local agency" and documents relating to
the settlement of a private personal injury claim with public funds
constituted "writings" containing information regarding "the
conduct of the public business," subject to public inspection and
disclosure under the act.  Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers,
Inc. v County of Orange (1984, 4th Dist) 158 Cal App 3d 893, 205
Cal Rptr 92.
   Although court records are exempt from public inspection (Gov.
Code, @ 6252, subd. (a)) under the California Public Records Act
(Gov.  Code, @ 6251 et seq.), both the federal and state
Constitutions provide broad access rights to judicial hearings and
records. The preclusion from public inspection should be permitted
only upon a showing that revelation would tend to undermine
individual security, personal liberty, or private property, or
injure the public or the public good. Copley Press, Inc. v Superior
Court (1992, 4th Dist) 6 Cal App 4th 106, 7 Cal Rptr 2d 841.
   The trial court did not err in denying a probationer's petition
for a writ of mandate by which he sought, under the Public Records
Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250 et seq.), to compel the probation
department to give him a copy of his own probation file. Probation
files are court records, and thus are specifically excluded by Gov.
Code, @ 6252, subd. (a), from the disclosure required under the
act. Although court records are open to the public unless they are
specifically exempted from disclosure by statute or are protected
by the court itself due to the necessity of confidentiality, Pen.
Code, @ 1203.10, requiring that the probation file be open to
inspection to "any other person appointed by the court," suggests
only that the court may allow a defendant to inspect the probation
file or a portion of it. Even if the court allows such inspection,
it could and should limit the inspection to nonconfidential
matters. Since the probationer did not show good cause, or any
cause, for the inspection he desired, but only argued that
inspection was required by statute, he was not entitled to writ
relief.  McGuire v Superior Court (1993, 1st Dist) 12 Cal App 4th
1685, 16 Cal Rptr 2d 726.

                               GOVERNMENT CODE
                               TITLE 1. GENERAL
                          DIVISION 7. Miscellaneous
                   CHAPTER 3.5. Inspection of Public Records
                           Cal Gov Code @ 6253 (1993)

@ 6253.  Times when records are open to inspection; Establishment
of written guidelines for accessibility of records

   (a) Public records are open to inspection at all times during
the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has
a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided.
Every agency may adopt regulations stating the procedures to be
followed when making its records available in accordance with this
section.
   The following state and local bodies shall establish written
guidelines for accessibility of records. A copy of these guidelines
shall be posted in a conspicuous public place at the offices of
these bodies, and a copy of the guidelines shall be available upon
request free of charge to any person requesting that body's
records:

   Department of Motor Vehicles

   Department of Consumer Affairs

   Department of Transportation

   Department of Real Estate

   Department of Corrections

   Department of the Youth Authority

   Department of Justice

   Department of Insurance

   Department of Corporations

   Secretary of State

   State Air Resources Board

   Department of Water Resources

   Department of Parks and Recreation

   San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

   State Board of Equalization

   State Department of Health Services

   Employment Development Department

   State Department of Social Services

   State Department of Mental Health

   State Department of Developmental Services

   State Department of Alcohol and Drug Abuse

   Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development

   Public Employees' Retirement System

   Teachers' Retirement Board

   Department of Industrial Relations

   Department of General Services

   Department of Veterans Affairs

   Public Utilities Commission

   California Coastal Commission

   State Water Quality Control Board

   San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District

   All regional water quality control boards

   Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District

   Bay Area Air Quality Management District

   Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District

   Department of Toxic Substances Control

   Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

   (b) Guidelines and regulations adopted pursuant to this section
shall be consistent with all other sections of this chapter and
shall reflect the intention of the Legislature to make the records
accessible to the public.  The guidelines and regulations adopted
pursuant to this section shall not operate to limit the hours
public records are open for inspection as prescribed in subdivision
(a).

HISTORY:

   Added Stats 1968 ch 1473 @ 39; Amended Stats 1973 ch 664 @ 1;
Stat 1974 ch 544 @ 7; Stats 1975 ch 957 @ 6; Stats 1977 ch 1252 @
96, operative July 1, 1978; Stats 1979 ch 373 @ 120.

   Amended Stats 1983 ch 826 @ 1; Stats 1988 ch 409 @ 1; Governor's
Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1991 @ 155, effective July 17, 1991.

NOTES:
EDITOR'S NOTES:
   Under Gov C @ 12080.5, the Governor's Reorganization Plan No. 1
of 1991, of May 17, 1991, became effective July 17, 1991.

AMENDMENTS:
   1973 Amendment: (1) Amended subd (a) by (a) adding "(a)" before
"Public"; (b) adding the second paragraph; and (2) added subd (b).

   1974 Amendments: Substituted "Department of Employment
Development" for "Department of Human Resources Development" and
"Department of Benefit Payments" for "Department of Social Welfare"
in subd (a).

   1975 Amendment: Amended the second paragrah of subd (a) by (1)
deleting "by July 1, 1974" at the end of the first sentence and
after "such bodies" in the second sentence; (2) deleting
"thereafter" after "guidelines shall" in the second sentence; (3)
substituting "Department of the Youth Authority" for "California
Youth Authority"; (4) adding "State" before "Air Resources" and
before "Department of Health"; (5) adding "San Francisco" before
"Bay Conservation" and before "Bay Area"; (6) substituting
"Employment Development Department" for "Department of Employment
Development"; (7) substituting "Board" for "System" after
"Teachers' Retirement"; (8) substituting "California Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission" for "California Coastline Commission"; (9)
substituting "coastal zone conservation commissions" for "coastline
commissions"; and (10) added "County" after "Los Angeles".

   1977 Amendment: Amended the second paragraph by (1) substituting
"State Department of Health Services" for "State Department of
Health"; (2) substituting "State Department of Social Services" for
"Department of Benefit Payments"; and (3) adding "State Department
of Mental Health", "State Department of Developmental Services",
"State Department of Alcohol and Drug Abuse", and
"State Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development".

   1979 Amendment: Routine code maintenance.

   1983 Amendment: (1) Substituted "the" for "such" after "a copy
of" in the introductory clause of the second paragraph of subd (a)
and after "Legislature to make" in the first sentence of subd (b);
(2) amended the list in subd (a) by (a) substituting "California
Coastal Commission" for "California Coastal Zone Conservation
Commission"; and (b) deleting "All regional coastal zone
conservation commissions" before "State Water Quality Control
Board"; and (3) added the second sentence of subd (b).

   1988 Amendment: Amended the second paragraph of subd (a) by (1)
substituting "these" for "such" after "the offices of" in the
introductory clause; and (2) adding the State Board of Equalization
to the list of government agencies.

   1991 Amendment: Amended subd (a) by (1) Substituting "Quality
Management " for "Pollution Control" after "Bay Area Air"; and (2)
adding "Department of Toxic Substances Control
   "Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment"

HISTORICAL DERIVATION:
   (a) Former @ 1227, as added by Stats 1951 ch 655 @ 23.
   (b) Former Pol C @ 1032, as amended by Code Amdts 1873--74 ch
610 @ 27 p 14, Stats 1921 ch 355 @ 1 p 535.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S OPINIONS:
   Public records--privilege. 1968 AJ 7151.

CROSS REFERENCES:
   Fact of filing of complaint in issuance of attachment not to be
made public until filing of return of writ: CCP @ 482.050.

   Records of Insurance Commissioner regarding issuance and sale of
securities by insurers open to public: Ins C @ 855.
   Confidentiality of annual report to State Geologist: Pub Res C
@ 2207.

COLLATERAL REFERENCES:
   Witkin Evidence (3d ed) @@ 1252, 1260.
   Witkin Summary (9th ed) Workers' Compensation @ 20.
   Witkin Summary (8th ed) p 862.
   Cal Jur 3d Abstracters and Title Insurers @ 3, Wills @ 235.
   Cal Practice (Rev) Ch 20 Discovery Proceedings @ 20:7.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS:
   A trial judge's letter to the advisory pardon board regarding an
application for executive clemency as confidential.  1 Ops Atty Gen
144.
   Disclosure by Labor Commissioner of information obtained from
applicant for employment agency license.  5 Ops Atty Gen 145.
   Original copy of State Constitution and original laws not to be
removed from the office of the Secretary of State for exhibition
elsewhere. 12 Ops Atty Gen 147.
   Inspection of files of Adult Authority relating to individual
inmates and parolees.  13 Ops Atty Gen 180.
   Access to vital statistics records.  15 Ops Atty Gen 164.
   Inspection of records in central record depositary--effect of
passage of time upon confidential or restricted character of
records.  15 Ops Atty Gen 242.
   Authority of district or deputy to administer and certify oath
of complaining witness to criminal complaint.  15 Ops Atty Gen 304.
   Names and addresses of public high school students as not public
writings within meaning of section.  16 Ops Atty Gen 163.
   Confidential nature of report of State Department of Public
Health on county hospital, and data and information obtained during
investigation. 18 Ops Atty Gen 231.
   Adult probation officer's report as public record when.  24 Ops
Atty Gen 219.
   Controller's records indicating amounts of individual payments
to person retired under State Employee's Retirement Act and names
of individual payees as public records open to inspection by any
State citizen.  25 Ops Atty Gen 90.
   Records maintained by Department of Motor Vehicles pertaining to
physical or mental condition of person as confidential records and
not open to public inspection; right of department to establish
regulations making records, other than those which are
confidential, available for reasonable inspection.  26 Ops Atty Gen
136.
   Right of registrar of voters to make available to private
citizens duplicate of set of punch cards prepared by him, showing
information contained on affidavits of registration of voters.  27
Ops Atty Gen 30.
   Notice of intention to sell subdivided land as public record
which any citizen has right to inspect; preliminary title report,
furnished as part of subdivision filings, as private writing and
not public record subject to public inspection.  27 Ops Atty Gen
194.
   General financial records of State Employees' Retirement System,
records of investments, reports of actuaries and public agency
contracts and related correspondence as subject to public
inspection; information filed by members of system and pertaining
to individual members thereof as confidential and not to be
divulged.  27 Ops Atty Gen 267.
   Availability for public inspection of separate tax statement
required to be filed where party requests that county recorder make
permanent record of realty transfer document before affixing tax
stamps. 51 Ops Atty Gen 62.
   Availability for public inspection of files of Board of Pilot
Commissioners; authority of board to impose requirement that
persons wishing to inspect material on file do so only in presence
of commissioner or employee of Pilot Commission and only at
reasonable hours.  53 Ops Atty Gen 136.
   Public inspection of violation notices issued by local health
departments pursuant to California Pure Foods Act and Food Crop
Growing and Harvesting Sanitation Act.  53 Ops Atty Gen 258.
   Necessity that standards promulgated by county pursuant to W &
I C @ 17001 concerning aid and care for indigent and dependent poor
of county be opened to public inspection.  55 Ops Atty Gen 67.
   Availability for public inspection of records concerning
therapeutic abortion information on individual hospitals, but not
concerning individual persons.  55 Ops Atty Gen 369.
   Requirement that mechanical "reader" be available to public for
microfilm and microfiche items, after copying and destroying city
records; furnishing copies of requested records; propriety of
making additional microphotographs or microfilm copy, required by
Government Code @ 34090.5, from the original document or from
microphotograph thereof. 57 Ops Atty Gen 307.
   Circumstances under which University of California board of
regents may conduct executive sessions and subject which may be
considered during such sessions.  58 Ops Atty Gen 273.
   Confidentiality of certain details and requirement to disclose
information in proposed prepaid health plans.  58 Ops Atty Gen 371.
   The Treasurer's records that specify the owners of state
registered bonds are open to public inspection under the California
Public Records Act, [Gov C, @ 6250--6260], with the exception that
the name and address of individual bond owners may not be
distributed for commercial purposes, sold or rented by the
treasurer's office.  62 Ops Atty Gen 436.
   An elementary or high school district must provide a copy of a
textbook or other written instructional material used in the
district pursuant to a request, accompanied by the requisite fee,
made pursuant to the California Public Records Act, [Gov. Code, @@
6250 et seq.], unless
(a) it is test material exempt from disclosure;
(b) providing the copy would infringe a copyright; or
(c)  providing the copy would constitute an unreasonable burden on
the operation of a district.  64 Ops Atty Gen 186.
   Pupil records, protected by Ed. Code, @ 49076, of pupils who are
not parties to a hearing regarding another child's placement or
continued enrollment in a special education class, may be produced
by a school district in response to a subpoena duces tecum issued
by the Superintendent of Public Instruction only when a court has
ordered the school district to comply with the subpoena, in the
manner provided by law or when the parents of the affected pupils
consent in writing to the release of the pupil records of their
children.  64 Ops Atty Gen 292.
   Where a city clerk makes an authorized tape recording of a city
council meeting to facilitate the preparation of the minutes, any
person has a right to inspect the tape, receive copies of the tape,
and the tape recording may be destroyed at any time if the purpose
for which it was made and retained was solely to facilitate the
preparation of the minutes of the meeting. 64 Ops Atty Gen 317.
   Those financial statements requested and received by county from
potential bidders for refuse disposal contracts are confidential
and are not open to public when they are examined by committee of
board of supervisors at meeting subject to the Brown Act.  68 Ops
Atty Gen 16.

ANNOTATIONS:

   What are "records" of agency which must be made available under
state freedom of information act.  27 ALR4th 680.
   What constitutes an agency subject to application of state
freedom of information act.  27 ALR4th 742.
   State freedom of information act requests: right to receive
information in particular medium or format.  86 ALR4th 786.

                               NOTES OF DECISIONS
 1. In General
 2. Identification Requirement and Disclosure;
       Sufficient State Interest
 3. Inspection Right
 4. Reports or Documents Subject to Inspection

                               NOTES OF DECISIONS

1. In General
   In order that entry or record of official acts of public officer
shall be public record, it is not necessary that such record be
expressly required by law to be kept, but it is sufficient if it is
necessary or convenient to discharge of official duty.  Jessup v
Superior Court (1957) 151 CA2d 102, 311 P2d 177.
   An agreement entered into between a school district and a
private corporation, providing for performance by the corporation
of research and development work and services for a fee, could not
be said to require the district to violate Gov. Code, @ 6253,
requiring generally that public records be open to inspection
during an agency's office hours, but giving the agency the right to
adopt regulations stating the procedures to be followed when making
records available, where the agreement specifically permitted the
disclosure of any confidential material for which there was a
reasonable and proper need, on the condition that the person
receiving the material agree not to publish or sell it. Moreover,
Gov. Code, @ 6254, provides that nothing in the Public Records Act
shall be construed to require disclosure of records exempted by
provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege, and, under
Evid. Code, @ 1060, the owner of a trade secret is privileged to
refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing the
secret.  California School Employees Asso. v Sunnyvale Elementary
School Dist. (1973) 36 CA3d 46, 111 Cal Rptr 433.
   The statutory procedure for the giving of notice regarding the
adoption of rules and regulations by the air pollution control
districts provides for adequate notice of such rules and
regulations and therefore accords due process to persons accused of
violations. Health & Saf. Code, @ 40703, providing for notice of
the intended adoption of such rules, is sufficient to apprise all
interested persons and to afford them opportunity to present
objections. Health & Saf. Code, @ 40704, providing for the filing
of adopted rules with the Air Resources Board, establishes a common
and definite place where the contents of such rules may be found
and inspected pursuant to the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @
6250  et seq.).  People v A-1 Roofing Service, Inc. (1978) 87 CA3d
Supp 1, 151 Cal Rptr 522.
   Under Gov. Code, @ 6253, subd. (a), which gives every person a
right to inspect any public record, subject to specific exceptions,
a newspaper enjoys the identical right.  Times Mirror Co. v
Superior Court, County of Sacramento (1990, 3rd Dist) 217 Cal App
3d 360, 265 Cal Rptr 844, review gr (1990, Cal) 269 Cal Rptr 73,
790 P2d 237.

2. Identification Requirement and Disclosure; Sufficient State
Interest

   A University of California policy of annexing limited disclosure
conditions (purpose and officers' names) to the privilege of
becoming a registered campus organization entitled to use campus
facilities, and of opening such statements to inspection by the
public, was justified where there was a sufficient state interest
to outweigh alleged impairment of First Amendment rights of an
officer of such a registered organization, particularly where it
could not be said that the identification requirement and
disclosure of the limited information to a member of the public
would unduly deter the freedom of expression of dissident
organizations and their officers, but rather that the regulation
appeared well designed to promote that freedom of expression in a
manner consistent with the University's interest in insuring the
orderly enjoyment of its facilities, together with the public
rights to ascertain the identity of organizations and the
responsible officers using public property.  Eisen v University of
Cal.(1969) 269 CA2d 696, 75 Cal Rptr 45, 37 ALR3d 1300.
   The right of the People of California to know the identity and
respective officers of student organizations that might be using
public financed and owned campus facilities of the University was
a sufficient compelling public interest to warrant minimal indirect
infringement of such an officer's first amendment rights by a
policy of annexing limited disclosure conditions (purpose and
officers' names) to the privilege of becoming a registered campus
organization entitled to use campus facilities, and of opening such
statements to inspection by the public, where the only information
made available was the purpose of the organization and the names of
its officers, a modicum of information far from overly broad to
accomplish the legitimate and substantial purpose of the policy.
Eisen v University of Cal. (1969) 269 CA2d 696, 75 Cal Rptr 45, 37
ALR3d 1300.
   Just as the People of the State have a right to know how their
elected officials conduct the public business, they are entitled to
know the identity and responsible officers of organizations that
are granted the privilege of becoming campus organizations using
the public property and facilities of the University.  Eisen v
University of Cal. (1969) 269 CA2d 696, 75 Cal Rptr 45, 37 ALR2d
1300.

3. Inspection Right

   A citizen's inspection right as to preliminary estimates and
details in connection with the Hetch Hetchy project of the city and
county of San Francisco is not affected by the fact that the plans
in question are tentative and liable to error or alteration since,
while they may not represent the final result of the work of the
city engineer's office, they are important details of that work,
even if the public's interest is only to see that the city engineer
is taking steps toward the completion of the project.  Coldwell v
Board of Public Works (1921) 187 C 510, 202 P 879.
   A citizen's right to inspect preliminary estimates and details
in connection with the acquisition and construction of a municipal
water supply system as "other matters" within the meaning of this
section is not affected by the fact that the city engineer had
communicated them to the city attorney as confidential matter in
pending and anticipated litigation affecting the project. Coldwell
v Board of Public Works (1921) 187 C 510, 202 P 879.
   Where preliminary estimates and details in connection with the
acquisition and construction of a municipal water supply project
were permitted by the city engineer to be inspected by some
citizens, other citizens' inspection right cannot be refused on the
ground that the matter was of a confidential character. Coldwell v
Board of Public Works (1921) 187 C 510, 202 P 879.
   Public policy demands that certain communications and documents
shall be treated as confidential and not open to indiscriminate
inspection, notwithstanding that they are in the custody of a
public officer or board and are of a public nature.  Runyon v Board
of Prison Terms & Paroles (1938) 26 CA2d 183, 79 P2d 101.

   Public policy prohibits indiscriminate inspection of documents
and records kept on file in public institutions, concerning the
condition, care, and treatment of the inmates thereof, and the
files in the offices of those charged with the execution of the
laws relating to the apprehension, prosecution and punishment of
criminals.  Runyon v Board of Prison Terms & Paroles (1938) 26 CA2d
183, 79 P2d 101.
   Right of inspection may be curtailed in relation to
communications or portions thereof where public policy, enacted
into statutory law, demands that disclosure be prohibited.  San
Francisco v Superior Court (1951) 38 C2d 156, 238 P2d 581.
   Written statements made by officers or employees within prison
concerning killing happening therein, and copies of statements
taken from prisoners, in hands of coroner, are not public records
such as to be subject to inspection by defendants.  Burwell v Teets
(1957) 245 F2d 154.

4. Reports or Documents Subject to Inspection

   Written charge made to board of supervisors, board of directors
or trustees of college or other state institution, upon being filed
in office of custodian of their records, does not necessarily
become public record to which any citizen may have access at
pleasure.  Colnon v Orr (1886) 71 C 43, 11 P 814.
   Public has right to know and discuss all judicial proceedings,
unless such right is expressly interdicted by constitutional or
statutory provisions, or unless publication prohibited by court
order is of such a nature as to obstruct or embarrass court in its
administration of law and execution of powers expressly conferred
upon it.  Shortridge, In re (1893) 99 C 526, 34 P 227.
   Judgment of conviction delivered with convict and filed by
warden of State prison as commitment is public document which
citizen has right to inspect. People v Howard (1925) 72 CA 561, 237
P 780.
   Autopsy report is public record which citizen may inspect.
Walker v Superior Court (1957) 155 CA2d 134, 317 P2d 130.
   Monthly pesticide spray reports submitted in accordance with Agr
Code, @ 11733, to a county agricultural commissioner, each
containing the name of the operator, the location and owners of the
lands to which pesticides were applied, the chemical combinations,
quantities, concentrations, and dates of such applications, and the
crops and pests involved, were "public records" within the meaning
of the California Public Records Act (Gov Code, @@ 6250 et seq.)
Uribe v Howie (1971) 19 CA3d 194, 96 Cal Rptr 493.
   Under Pen Code, @ 2081.5, limiting access to a prisoner's
records to the authorities listed therein, Gov Code, @ 6253, subd
(f), exempting certain prison records from the general disclosure
provisions of the statute, and Gov Code, @ 6255, authorizing the
withholding of records for reasons of public policy, the news media
was properly denied access to the prison files of an inmate facing
serious criminal charges in which criminal proceedings the court
had entered a publicity order in protection of the inmate's right
to a fair trial.  Yarish v Nelson (1972) 27 CA3d 893, 104 Cal Rptr
205.
   In holding that letters of complaint to the Bureau of
Collections and Investigative Services charging unethical or
abusive practices by licensed collection agencies are exempt from
disclosure as "records of complaint" within the meaning of Gov.
Code, @ 6254, subd. (f), the trial court erred in failing to find
on the material factor, urged as a special basis of plaintiffs'
demand for disclosure under the Public Records Act, of the bureau's
practice of furnishing copies of consumer complaints to the
affected licensees. Gov. Code, @ 6254, setting forth various
categories of exemptions, and further providing that it is not to
be construed as "preventing" public inspection of exempted material
not otherwise prohibited by law, does not permit selective
disclosure. The practice of disclosing complaints to the affected
licensees destroys the privilege of confidentiality otherwise
permitted by the statute, and, when a record loses its exempt
status, it becomes subject to the provision of Gov. Code, @ 6253,
subd. (a), that "every citizen has a right to inspect any public
record." Black Panther Party v Kehoe (1974) 42 CA3d 645, 117 Cal
Rptr 106.
   Financial data supplied by a private waste disposal company to
a city which the city relied on in granting a rate increase to the
waste disposal company under the city's contract with the waste
disposal company for the collection of waste and garbage within the
city limits constituted "public records" within the meaning of Gov.
Code, @ 6252, subd. (d), defining public records, and was therefore
subject to public inspection under Gov. Code, @ 6253, unless
otherwise exempted from disclosure. The city had a contractual
relationship with the disposal company. The city delegated its duty
of trash collection to the disposal company, but still retained the
power and duty to monitor the disposal company's performance of its
delegated duties, under the express terms of the contract. There
was no question that the disposal company was providing a service
to the residents of the city, by way of a contract made between it
and the city. Assurance of confidentiality by the city to the
disposal company that the data would remain private was not
sufficient to convert what was a public record into a private
record.  San Gabriel Tribune v Superior Court (1983, 2d Dist) 143
Cal App 3d 762, 192 Cal Rptr 415.
   Two letters, one appointing a city firefighter to the position
of transit administrator and the other rescinding the appointment,
and the firefighter's salary card, which were part of the
employee's personnel file, were public records. They clearly
related to the conduct of the city's business. Thus, the city was
required to make these records accessible to the public under Gov.
Code, @ 6253, unless the letters and the personnel card were exempt
from disclosure (Gov. Code, @ 6254), or the city could show
justification for not disclosing them (Gov. Code, @ 6255).  Braun
v City of Taft (1984, 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr
654.
                               GOVERNMENT CODE
                               TITLE 1. GENERAL
                          DIVISION 7. Miscellaneous
                   CHAPTER 3.5. Inspection of Public Records

                           Cal Gov Code @ 6254 (1993)

@ 6254.  (First of two; Operative until July 1, 1993) Records
exempt from disclosure requirements

   Except as provided in Section 6254.7, nothing in this chapter
shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any of
the following:

                           Cal Gov Code @ 6254 (1993)



   (a) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency
memoranda which are not retained by the public agency in the
ordinary course of business, provided that the public interest in
withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in
disclosure.

   (b) Records pertaining to pending litigation to which the public
agency is a party, or to claims made pursuant to Division 3.6
(commencing with Section 810), until the pending litigation or
claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.

   (c) Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of
which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

   (d) Contained in or related to:

   (1) Applications filed with any state agency responsible for the
regulation or supervision of the issuance of securities or of
financial institutions, including, but not limited to, banks,
savings and loan associations, industrial loan companies, credit
unions, and insurance companies.

   (2) Examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on
behalf of, or for the use of, any state agency referred to in
paragraph (1).

   (3) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency
communications prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, any
state agency referred to in paragraph (1).

   (4) Information received in confidence by any state agency
referred to in paragraph (1).

   (e) Geological and geophysical data, plant production data, and
similar information relating to utility systems development, or
market or crop reports, which are obtained in confidence from any
person.

   (f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or
records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the
office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, and
any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security
files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any
investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or
local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing
purposes, except that state and local law enforcement agencies
shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or
witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the
description of any property involved, the date, time, and location
of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved
in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than
confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an
authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against
which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering
bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the
incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny,
robbery, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by
subdivision (c) of Section 13960, unless the disclosure would
endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the
investigation, or unless disclosure would endanger the successful
completion of the investigation or a related investigation.
However, nothing in this division shall require the disclosure of
that portion of those investigative files which reflect the
analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.

   Other provisions of this subdivision notwithstanding, state and
local law enforcement agencies shall make public the following
information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular
item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved
in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of
the investigation or a related investigation:

   (1) The full name, current address, and occupation of every
individual arrested by the agency, the individual's physical
description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex,
height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date
of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances
surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner
of release or the location where the individual is currently being
held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including
any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or
probation holds.

   (2) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the
Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or
requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and
nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the
information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other
incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and location of
occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name, age, and
current address of the victim, except that the address of the
victim of any crime defined by Section 261, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d,
273.5, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, or 422.75 of the Penal
Code shall not be disclosed, the factual circumstances surrounding
the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries,
property, or weapons involved. The name of a victim of any crime
defined by Section 261, 264, 264.1, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 286, 288,
288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, or 422.75 of the Penal Code may be
withheld at the victim's request, or at the request of the victim's
parent or guardian if the victim is a minor.  When a person is the
victim of more than one crime, information disclosing that the
person is a victim of a crime defined by Section 261, 264, 264.1,
273a, 273d, 286, 288, 288a, 289, 422.6, 422.7, or 422.75 of the
Penal Code may be deleted at the request of the victim, or the
victim's parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, in making the
report of the crime, or of any crime or incident accompanying the
crime, available to the public in compliance with the requirements
of this paragraph.

   (g) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data
used to administer a licensing examination, examination for
employment, or academic examination, except as provided for in
Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 99150) of Part 65 of the
Education Code.


   (h) The contents of real estate appraisals or engineering or
feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by the state or
local agency relative to the acquisition of property, or to
prospective public supply and construction contracts, until all of
the property has been acquired or all of the contract agreement
obtained. However, the law of eminent domain shall not be affected
by  this provision.

   (i) Information required from any taxpayer in connection with
the collection  of local taxes which is received in confidence and
the disclosure of the information to other persons would result in
unfair competitive disadvantage to  the person supplying the
information.

   (j) Library circulation records kept for the purpose of
identifying the borrower of items available in libraries, and
library and museum materials made  or acquired and presented solely
for reference or exhibition purposes. The exemption in this
subdivision shall not apply to records of fines imposed on the
borrowers.

   (k) Records the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited
pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to,
provisions of the Evidence  Code relating to privilege.

   (l) Correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the
Governor's office or in the custody of or maintained by the
Governor's legal affairs secretary, provided that public records
shall not be transferred to the custody  of the Governor's legal
affairs secretary to evade the disclosure provisions of  this
chapter.

   (m) In the custody of or maintained by the Legislative Counsel.

   (n) Statements of personal worth or personal financial data
required by a licensing agency and filed by an applicant with the
licensing agency to establish his or her personal qualification for
the license, certificate, or permit applied for.


    (o) Financial data contained in applications for financing
under Division 27  (commencing with Section 44500) of the Health
and Safety Code, where an authorized officer of the California
Pollution Control Financing Authority determines that disclosure of
the financial data would be competitively injurious to the
applicant and the data is required in order to obtain guarantees
from the United States Small Business Administration. The
California  Pollution Control Financing Authority shall adopt rules
for review of individual requests for confidentiality under this
section and for making available to the public those portions of an
application which are subject to disclosure under this chapter.

   (p) Records of state agencies related to activities governed by
Chapter 10.3  (commencing with Section 3512) of Division 4 of Title
1, Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 3525) of Division 4 of
Title 1, and Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 3560) of Division
4 of Title 1, which reveal a state agency's deliberative processes,
impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting
minutes, research, work products, theories, or strategy, or which
provide instruction, advice, or training to employees who do  not
have full collective bargaining and representation rights under the
above chapters. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to
limit the disclosure duties of a state agency with respect to any
other records relating to the activities governed by the employee
relations acts referred to in this subdivision.

   (q) Records of state agencies related to activities governed by
Articles 2.6  (commencing with Section 14081), 2.8 (commencing with
Section 14087.5), and 2.91 (commencing with Section 14089) of
Chapter 7 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions
Code, which reveal the special negotiator's deliberative processes,
discussions, communications, or any other portion of the
negotiations with providers of health care services, impressions,
opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product,
theories, or strategy, or which provide instruction, advice, or
training to employees.

   Except for the portion of a contract containing the rates of
payment, contracts for inpatient services entered into pursuant to
these articles, on or  after April 1, 1984, shall be open to
inspection one year after they are fully executed. In the event
that a contract for inpatient services which is entered into prior
to April 1, 1984, is amended on or after April 1, 1984, the
amendment, except for any portion containing the rates of payment,
shall be open to inspection one year after it is fully executed. If
the California Medical Assistance Commission enters into contracts
with health care providers for other than inpatient hospital
services, those contracts shall be open to inspection one year
after they are fully executed.

  Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection
under this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment
containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.

   Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the entire contract
or amendment  shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative
Audit Committee.  The Joint Legislative Audit Committee shall
maintain the confidentiality of the contracts  and amendments until
such time as a contract or amendment is fully open to inspection by
the public.

   (r) Records of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred
places maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission.

   (s) A final accreditation report of the Joint Commission on
Accreditation of  Hospitals which has been transmitted to the State
Department of Health Services  pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 1282 of the Health and Safety Code.

   (t) Records of a local hospital district, formed pursuant to
Division 23 (commencing with Section 32000) of the Health and
Safety Code, or the records of a municipal hospital, formed
pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 37600) or Article 8
(commencing with Section 37650) of Chapter 5 of Division 3 of Title
4 of this code, which relate to any contract with an insurer or
nonprofit hospital service plan for inpatient or outpatient
services for alternative rates pursuant to Section 10133 or 11512
of the Insurance Code. However, the record shall be open to
inspection within one year after the contract is fully executed.

   (u) Information contained in applications for licenses to carry
concealed weapons issued by the sheriff of a county or the chief or
other head of a municipal police department which indicates when or
where the applicant is vulnerable to attack or which concerns the
applicant's medical or psychological  history or that of members of
his or her family.

   (v) Residence addresses contained in licensure applications and
registration  applications for collection agencies as may be
required by the Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services of
the Department of Consumer Affairs pursuant to Sections 6876.2,
6877, 6878, and 6894.3 of the Business and Professions Code.

   (w)(1) Records of the Major Risk Medical Insurance Program
related to activities governed by Part 6.3 (commencing with Section
12695), and Part 6.5 (commencing with Section 12700), of Division
2 of the Insurance Code, and which  reveal the deliberative
processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the
negotiations with health plans, or the impressions, opinions,
recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories,
or strategy  of the board or its staff, or records that provide
instructions, advice, or training to employees.

   (2)(A) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the
rates of payment, contracts for health coverage entered into
pursuant to Part 6.3 (commencing with Section 12695), or Part 6.5
(commencing with Section 12700), of Division 2 of the Insurance
Code, on or after July 1, 1991, shall be open to inspection one
year after they have been fully executed.

   (B) In the event that a contract for health coverage that is
entered into prior to July 1, 1991, is amended on or after July 1,
1991, the amendment, except for any portion containing the rates of
payment shall be open to inspection one year after the amendment
has been fully executed.

   (3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to
inspection pursuant  to this subdivision, the portion of the
contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open
to inspection.

   (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the entire
contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by
the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The Joint Legislative Audit
Committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and
amendments thereto, until the contract or amendments to a contract
is open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (3).

   Nothing in this section prevents any agency from opening its
records concerning the administration of the agency to public
inspection, unless disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law.

   Nothing in this section prevents any health facility from
disclosing to a certified bargaining agent relevant financing
information pursuant to Section 8  of the National Labor Relations
Act.

HISTORY:
      Added Stats 1981 ch 684 @ 1.5, effective September 23, 1981,
operative January 1, 1982.
    Amended Stats 1982 ch 83 @ 1, effective March 1, 1982, ch 1492
@ 2, ch 1594 @ 2, effective September 30, 1982; Stats 1983 ch 200
@ 1, effective July 12, 1983, ch 621 @ 1, ch 955 @ 1, ch 1315 @ 1;
Stats 1984 ch 1516 @ 1, effective September 28, 1984; Stats 1985 ch
103 @ 1; ch 1218 @ 1; Stats 1986 ch 185 @ 2; Stats 1987  ch 634 @
1, effective September 14, 1987, ch 635 @ 1; Stats 1988 ch 870 @ 1,
ch  1371 @ 2; Stats 1989 ch 191 @ 1; Stats 1990 ch 1106 @ 2 (SB
2106); Stats 1991 ch 278 @ 1.2 (AB 99), effective July 29, 1991, ch
607 @ 4 (SB 98); Stats 1992 ch 3  @ 1 (AB 1681), effective February
10, 1992, ch 72 @ 2 (AB 1525), effective May 28, 1992.

NOTES:
FORMER SECTIONS:
    Former @ 6254, similar to the present section, was added Stats
1968 ch 1473 @ 39, amended Stats 1970 ch 1231 @ 1.5, ch 1295 @ 1.5,
Stats 1975 ch 1231 @ 1, ch  1246 @ 3, Stats 1976 ch 314 @ 1, Stats
1977 ch 650 @ 1, effective September 7, 1977, Stats 1978 ch 1217 @
3, ch 1217 @ 4, operative July 1, 1979, Stats 1980 ch 519 @ 1,
Stats 1981 ch 265 @ 1, ch 684 @ 1, effective September 23, 1981,
and repealed, effective January 1, 1982, by its own terms.

AMENDMENTS:

    1982 Amendment: (1) Amended subd (f) by (a) substituting "state
and local law enforcement agencies" for "local law enforcement
agencies and the California Highway Commission" after "purposes,
except that" in the first sentence; and (b) adding the second
paragraph; (2) added subd (q); and (3) deleted the former last
paragraph which read: "This section shall become operative on
January 1, 1982."  (As amended by Stats 1982, ch 1594, compared to
the section as it read prior to 1982. This section was also amended
by two earlier chapters, ch 83 and ch 1492.  See Gov C @ 9605.)
1983 Amendment: Added subds (r) and (s). (As amended by Stats 1983,
ch 1315,  compared to the section as it read prior to 1983. This
section was also amended by three earlier chapters, chs 200, 621,
and 955. See Gov C @ 9605.)
    1984 Amendment: In addition to making technical changes, (1)
substituted subd (q) for former subd (q) which read: "(q) Records
of state agencies related to activities governed by Articles 2.6,
2.8, and 2.91 of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000) of Part
3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, which reveal
the special negotiator's deliberative processes, impressions,
opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product,
theories, or strategy, or which provide instruction, advice, or
training to employees. All or portions of contracts entered into
pursuant to these articles may be exempted from the provisions of
this chapter as specified by the terms of each contract.
"Nothing in this section is to be construed as preventing any
agency from opening its records concerning the administration of
the agency to public inspection, unless disclosure is otherwise
prohibited by law."; and (2) added the last two paragraphs.
    1985 Amendment: (1) Amended the second paragraph of subd (q) by
adding (a) "Except for the portion of a contract containing the
rates of payment," and (b)  ", except for any portion containing
the rates of payment,"; and (2) added the third and fourth
paragraphs of subd (q). (As amended by Stats 1985, ch 1218,
compared to the section as it read prior to 1985. This section was
also amended  by an earlier chapter, ch 103. See Gov C @ 9605.)
    1986 Amendment: (1) Deleted "of Title 1 of the Government Code"
after "Section 810)" in subd (b); (2) substituted "paragraph (1)"
for "subdivision (1)" wherever it appears in subd (d); (3)
substituted "as defined by subdivision (c)" for "of violence as
defined by subdivision (b)" in the first paragraph of subd (f); and
(4) added subd (t).
    1987 Amendment: Added the second and third sentences of subd
(f)(2). (As amended by Stats 1987, ch 635, compared to the section
as it read prior to 1987. This section was also amended by an
earlier chapter, ch 634. See Gov C @ 9605.) 1988 Amendment: (1)
Substituted ". However" for "; provided, however, that" at the end
of the first sentence of the first paragraph of subd (f); (2) added
"273.5," after "273d" in the first sentence of subd (f)(2); and (3)
substituted  ". However" for ", provided, however" at the end of
the first sentence of subd (h).
  1989 Amendment: Added "273.5," in the first sentence of subd
(f)(2).
    1990 Amendment: Added subd (v).
    1991 Amendment (ch 278): Added subd (w).    1991 Amendment (ch
607): In addition to making technical changes, added "422.6, 422.7,
or 422.75" wherever it appears in subd (2) of the second paragraph
of subd (f).
    1992 Amendment (ch 3): Added "Subject to the restrictions
imposed by Section  841.5 of the Penal Code," at the beginning of
subd (f)(2).
  1992 Amendment (ch 72): Added "or the records of a municipal
hospital, formed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section
37600) or Article 8 (commencing with Section 37650) of Chapter 5 of
Division 3 of Title 4 of this code," in the first sentence of subd
(t).

HISTORICAL DERIVATION:

    Former @ 6254, as added Stats 1968 ch 1473 @ 39, amended Stats
1970 ch 1231 @ 11.5, ch 1295 @ 1.5, Stats 1975 ch 1231 @ 1, ch 1246
@ 3, Stats 1976 ch 314 @ 1, Stats 1977 ch 650 @ 1, Stats 1978 ch
1217 @@ 3, 4, Stats 1980 ch 519 @ 1, Stats 1981 ch 265 @ 1, ch 684
@ 1.
NOTE-
Stats 1986 ch 185 also provides:
    SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
    (a) That district hospitals provide efficient and cost
conscious health care  services in many areas of the state.
(b) Because of Proposition 13, on the ballot of June 6, 1978, which
added Article XIII A to the California Constitution, and increasing
pressure for cost  containment in the health care industry,
district hospitals are increasingly put into competitive positions
with nonprofit and proprietary hospitals.
(c) Because district hospitals are subject to public meeting and
disclosure laws, they are, with growing frequency, forced to
disclose financial and planning information in the nature of trade
secrets, which information is of value to competing hospitals.
(d) Therefore, it is necessary in the interest of providing healthy
competition for health care services to provide a limited exemption
for district hospitals for purposes of the laws pertaining to open
meetings and public records.
   EDITOR'S NOTES:
   For severability of provisions, see the 1991 note following Ins
C @ 12695.
   LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S OPINIONS: Public records--privilege. 1968
AJ 7151.
   CROSS REFERENCES:    Air pollution data, housing code
violations, "trade secrets": Gov C @ 6254.7.    Inspection by
district attorney of records of licensing complaints and
investigations: Gov C @ 6262.
    Exclusion from inspection of papers in adoption proceedings: CC
@ 227. Privilege for official information: Ev C @ 1040.
Information and records in assessor's office not required by law to
be kept or prepared: Rev & Tax C @ 408.
    Inspection of assessor's records in Los Angeles County: Rev &
Tax C @ 408.2.
     Property statement submitted to assessor by property owner not
subject to inspection: Rev & Tax C @ 451.
    Confidentiality of state income reports and returns: Rev & Tax
C @@ 19282 et seq.
    Limitation on right to inspect petition and reports of
probation officer in juvenile court proceedings: W & I C @ 827.
COLLATERAL REFERENCES:    Witkin & Epstein, Criminal Law (2d ed) @
1297.    Witkin Evidence (3d ed) @@ 1229, 1249, 1251, 1254-1258,
1260, 1299, 1578.    Cal Jur 3d (Rev) Consumer and Borrower
Protection Laws @ 316, Delinquent and Dependent Children @ 205.
Cal Jur 3d Abstracters and Title Insurers @ 3, Records and
Recording Laws @@  7, 9.    Cal Trial Handbook 2d (BW, 1987) @
28:17.    Cal Practice (Rev) Ch 20 Discovery Proceedings @ 20:7.
Exemptions under federal Freedom of Information Act: 5 USCS @
552(b).    Ehrman & Flavin, Taxing California Property (3d ed) @@
15:01, 15:055.
   LAW REVIEW ARTICLES:    Review of Selected 1982 Legislation.  14
Pacific LJ 581.    Review of Selected 1983 Legislation.  15 Pacific
LJ 587.  Privacy limitations on civil discovery in federal and
California practice. 17 Pacific LJ 1.    Review of 1989
Legislation.  21 Pacific LJ 454.


ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS:
Availability for public inspection of files of Board of Pilot
Commissioners;  authority of board to impose requirement that
persons wishing to inspect material on file do so only in presence
of commissioner or employee of Pilot Commission and only at
reasonable hours.  53 Ops Atty Gen 136.    Confidentiality of
certain details and requirement to disclose information in proposed
prepaid health plans.  58 Ops Atty Gen 371.
    Derogatory material contained in personnel file of school
teacher constituting a public record of confidential nature may not
be destroyed by governing board of local school district without
complying with provisions of Ed C @ 1034; unauthorized destruction
constituting violation of Gov C @ 6200.  58 Ops Atty Gen 422.
    Ed C @ 10751, takes precedence over the California Public
Records Act, in prohibiting a school from disclosing the contents
of pupils' records. A school district has discretionary authority
to disclose pupil records to certain federal, state and local
officers but such disclosures, not "required" by state  law, would
violate 20 USCS @ 1232g(b)(1)(E). 58 Ops Atty Gen 646.
    Records of state summary criminal information contained in
concealed weapons  permit records of a sheriff may not be disclosed
to the public. The records of the sheriff's investigation of the
qualification and fitness of an applicant for a concealed weapon
permit are exempt from public disclosure by Government Code, @ 6254
(f). The application for and record of a permit for a concealed
weapon are open to public inspection unless they contain
exceptional information by which the sheriff can demonstrate that
the public interest served by not making such records public
clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure as
provided in Government Code, @ 6255.  62 Ops Atty Gen 595.    A law
enforcement agency may lawfully refuse to furnish a copy of an
arrest or complaint report requested by one who has provided
information contained in the report; however, the agency must make
public certain information contained in such reports.  65 Ops Atty
Gen 563.
    Provisions of the California Public Records Act which except
certain law enforcement intelligence and investigatory records from
public disclosure need not be interpreted to substantially conform
with federal court interpretations of similar provisions in the
federal Freedom of Information Act.  66 Ops Atty Gen 272.
    Those financial statements requested and received by county
from potential bidders for refuse disposal contracts are
confidential and are not open to public when they are examined by
committee of board of supervisors at meeting subject to the Brown
Act.  68 Ops Atty Gen 16.
    Motor carrier records of Department of California Highway
Patrol are not exempt from disclosure to general public.  69 Ops
Atty Gen 129.
   Phrase "records pertaining to pending litigation" contained
subd. (b) of @ 6254 of the Public Records Act refers to records of
public agency which have specifically been prepared for litigation
to which agency is party.  Records generated in ordinary course of
public agency's business which may be relevant in future litigation
to which agency might be party are not exempt from disclosure under
subd. (b) before claim is filed with agency or litigation against
it commences. Nor do such records become exempt from disclosure
under subd. (b) once claim is filed or litigation actually
commences. Police records which had to be disclosed under subd. (f)
are not exempt from disclosure under subd. (b) if they become
relevant in pending litigation to which agency is party. Claim
filed against public agency under California's Tort Claims Act is
not exempt from disclosure under subd. (b).  71 Ops Atty Gen 235.
 ANNOTATIONS:    What constitutes "trade secrets" exempt from
disclosure under state freedom of information act.  27 ALR4th 773.
 Freedom of Information Act exemption (5 USCS @ 552(b)(5)) for
inter-agency and intra-agency memorandums or letters as applicable
to communications to or from attorneys for the government.  54 ALR
Fed 280.

NOTES OF DECISIONS
1. In General
2. Police, Correctional and Licensing Matters
3. -Records of Complaints
4. Pending Litigation; Discovery
5. Evidentiary Privileges
6. Personnel Matters

NOTES OF DECISIONS
   1. In General
   In seeking to avoid excessive and therefore prejudicial
publicity in a pending prosecution, the trial court's order that
copies of the transcript of the grand jury proceedings in
possession of the clerk remain sealed and which restricted and
limited the disclosure of the transcript contents by the clerk and
district attorney to unauthorized personnel, specifically
newspapers, was unreasonable, where the effect of the order was to
permanently deny the right of public inspection of the grand jury
records in question.  Craemer v Superior Court (1968) 265 Cal App
2d 216, 71 Cal Rptr 193.
    In keeping with a trial judge's duty to insure that a defendant
will receive  a fair trial the judge may, in order to prevent even
the probability of unfairness, make such orders as are reasonably
designed to avert improper prejudice to indicted defendants, and,
accordingly, a proper order can require that grand jury transcripts
not be disclosed to any person (other than those specifically
mentioned in Pen Code, @ 938.1) until a specified reasonable period
of time after a copy thereof has been delivered to the defendant,
provided that if the defendant, during such time, shall move the
court that such transcript, or any portion thereof, not be
available for public inspection pending trial, such time shall be
extended subject to the court's ruling on such motion.  Craemer v
Superior Court (1968) 265 Cal App 2d 216, 71 Cal Rptr 193.
    In a proceeding for appointment of a guardian of a minor child
committed to the care of the welfare department and placed in a
foster home for adoption, the trial court abused its discretion in
ordering the welfare department to answer interrogatories as to the
identity of persons having custody of the child following
commitment and other particulars concerning the activities of the
department in connection with attempts to arrange adoptive
placement for the child, where the information concerning the
placement and adoption of the child  was acquired in confidence by
the department and its employees in the course of  their duties,
and was not open or officially disclosed to the public prior to the
time a claim of privilege was made, and where no preliminary basis
had been  established for finding that the adoption procedure was
not running its proper course, and that the agency was unfit to
have temporary custody of the child, or that it was improbable that
the child would be adopted; while there is no absolute statutory
ban on disclosure of such information, nor any absolute privilege
with respect thereto, Evid Code, @ 1040, requires a weighing of
necessity for preserving confidentiality with the necessity for
disclosure in the interest of justice.  Terzian v Superior Court
(1970) 10 Cal App 3d 286, 88  Cal Rptr 806.

Gov Code, @ 6254, subd (e), exempting crop reports from public
disclosure, applies only to reports specifying the nature, extent,
type, or magnitude of crops being grown, disclosure of which might
adversely affect the confidentiality of growers' enterprises and
interfere with trading in futures on commodity markets.  Uribe v
Howie (1971) 19 Cal App 3d 194, 96 Cal Rptr 493.
    Monthly pesticide spray reports submitted in accordance with
Agr Code, @ 11733, to a county agricultural commissioner, each
containing the name of the operator, the location and owners of the
lands to which pesticides were applied, the chemical combinations,
quantities, concentrations, and dates of such applications, and the
crops and pests involved, were not "crop reports" within the
meaning of the disclosure exemption provisions of Gov Code, @ 6254,
subd (e), where the reports did not yield information concerning
the magnitude of the crops sprayed, their state of preparation, or
their likely marketing dates, and  could not affect the privacy of
either the growers' or applicators' financial dealings, nor affect
prices in commodity markets.  Uribe v Howie (1971) 19 Cal App 3d
194, 96 Cal Rptr 493.
    The trial court properly denied issuance of a writ of mandate
to compel a county assessor to permit a corporation to inspect
documents and records enabling it to more easily compare market
values of real property with assessed values. Though the documents
are the working papers used by the assessor in the  performance of
his duties, there is no provision requiring him to prepare and keep
them and they therefore fall within the purview of Rev & Tax Code,
@ 408, subd (a), providing ". . . any information and records in
the assessor's office  which are not required by law to be kept and
prepared by the assessor are not public documents and shall not be
open to public inspection." Statewide Homeowners, Inc. v Williams
(1973) 30 Cal App 3d 567, 106 Cal Rptr 479.
    In actions seeking reimbursement from the State of California
and the California Highway Patrol for allegedly illegal charges
made for copies of traffic accident reports and an injunction
against such practice, the trial court properly sustained
defendants' demurrers, where, though the reports were public
records within the meaning of Gov. Code, @ 6252, subd. (d), and
thus subject to the limitation of Gov. Code, @ 6257, as to charges
for copies, the complaints failed to allege that plaintiffs were
persons entitled, under Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f), and Veh.
Code, @ 20012, to such otherwise confidential  information.
However, the court should have granted plaintiffs leave to amend to
allege such entitlement if the facts permitted.  Vallejos v
California Highway Patrol (1979) 89 Cal App 3d 781, 152 Cal Rptr
846.
    Medical records of a tort claimant appended to a letter sent to
a county requesting settlement of the claim were not exempt from
disclosure under Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (c) (California Public
Records Act), intended to protect information of a highly personal
nature on file with a public agency. By making  the claim, the
claimant placed his alleged physical injuries and medical records
substantiating them in issue and tacitly waived any expectation of
privacy regarding the medical records. Because the county utilized
the supporting medical records in arriving at its decision to
settle the claim, it could not hide behind the claimant's privacy
to justify its concealment of the records from public scrutiny.
Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v County of Orange (1984,
4th Dist) 158 Cal App 3d 893, 205 Cal Rptr 92.
    There are three statutory conditions for exemption from the
California Public Records Act, pursuant to Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd.
(a) (preliminary drafts of agency memoranda not normally retained
in the ordinary course of business): the  record sought must be a
preliminary draft, note, or memorandum; not retained by  the public
agency in the ordinary course of business; and the public interest
in withholding must clearly outweigh the public interest in
disclosure. The purpose of the exemption is to provide a measure of
agency privacy for written discourse concerning matters pending
administrative action.  Citizens for a Better Environment v
Department of Food & Agriculture (1985, 3d Dist) 171 Cal App 3d
704, 217 Cal Rptr 504.
    With regard to the "memorandum" exemption to the federal
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), an exemption protects the
deliberative materials produced in the process of making agency
decisions, but not factual materials, and not agency law. The
purpose of the exception is to foster robust discussion within the
agency of policy questions attending pending administrative
decisions. The means to achieve this is an exemption from
disclosure of those portions of predecisional writings containing
advisory opinions, recommendations, and policy deliberations.
However, memoranda consisting only of compiled factual material or
purely factual material contained in deliberative memoranda and
severable from its context are not exempt from disclosure.
Moreover, the text and context of Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (a)
(exemption from disclosure as to preliminary drafts of agency
memoranda not normally retained in ordinary course of business),
pursuant to the California Public Records Act, suggest that it has
essentially the same purpose as its FOIA cognate. Thus, to the
extent permitted by the express statutory language, a reviewing
court may properly look to the reasoning of the analogous federal
case law in construing @ 6254, subd. (a).  Citizens for a Better
Environment v Department of Food & Agriculture (1985, 3d Dist) 171
Cal App 3d 704, 217 Cal Rptr 504.
    The purpose of the exemption under the California Public
Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.) regarding police records,
as originally enacted, was to  allow the law enforcement agency to
develop a discretionary policy for disclosure of such records. The
addition in 1982 of Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f)(1), and Gov. Code,
@ 6254, subd. (f)(2), specifying information contained within such
reports that must be disclosed, had the effect of extending public
access to information contained in agency records themselves
exempted from disclosure by Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f).  City of
Santa Rosa v Press Democrat (1986, 1st Dist) 187 Cal App 3d 1315,
232 Cal Rptr 445.    Cal. Const., art. I, @ 1, guarantees all
persons the inalienable right to privacy. Nonetheless, the public
and the press have a right to review the government's conduct of
its business. The Legislature, mindful of the right of individuals
to privacy, has deemed the public's right of access to information
concerning the conduct of public business a fundamental and
necessary interest of citizenship. Consequently, in enacting the
Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @   6250  et seq.), the Legislature
balanced the individual's privacy interest with the right to know
about the conduct of public business. The specific exemptions  from
this general requirement of disclosure, which are listed in Gov.
Code, @ 6254, are construed narrowly to insure maximum disclosure
of the conduct of governmental operations.  New York Times Co. v
Superior Court (1990, 2nd Dist) 218 Cal App 3d 1579, 268 Cal Rptr
21.
    The Governor's daily, weekly, and monthly appointment calendars
were not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act by
Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd.  (1), exempting from disclosure
correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the
Governor's office. For purposes of the act, the correspondence
exemption must be confined to communications by letter, and the
Governor's appointment calendars and schedules did not meet that
definition.  Times Mirror Co. v Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal 3d
1325, 283 Cal Rptr 893, 813 P2d 240.
    The Governor's daily, weekly, and monthly appointment calendars
were not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act by
Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd.  (1), exempting from disclosure
correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the
Governor's office. For purposes of the act, the correspondence
exemption must be confined to communications by letter, and the
Governor's appointment calendars and schedules did not meet that
definition.  Times Mirror  Co. v Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal 3d
1325, 283 Cal Rptr 893, 813 P2d 240.
    Under the "deliberative process" exemption to disclosure of
public records (Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (a)) in the Public Records
Act, the key question is whether the disclosure of materials would
expose an agency's decisionmaking process in such a way as to
discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby
undermine the agency's ability to perform its functions. Even if
the content of a document is purely factual, it is nonetheless
exempt from public scrutiny if it is actually related to the
process by which policies are formulated or inextricably
intertwined with policymaking processes.  Times Mirror Co. v
Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal 3d 1325, 283 Cal Rptr 893, 813 P2d
240.
   2. Police, Correctional and Licensing Matters
   Gov Code, @ 6254, subd (f), exempting from disclosure records
used for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes,
applies only when the prospect of enforcement proceedings is
concrete and definite; the exemption does not apply when an agency
merely labels its file "investigatory" and suggests that
enforcement proceedings may be initiated at some unspecified future
date or were previously considered.  Uribe v Howie (1971) 19 Cal
App 3d 194, 96 Cal Rptr 493.    Monthly pesticide spray reports
submitted in accordance with Agr Code, @ 11733, to a county
agricultural commissioner, each containing the name of the
operator, the location and owners of the lands to which pesticides
were applied, the chemical combinations, quantities,
concentrations, and dates of such applications, and the crops and
pests involved, could not, in an action seeking  public disclosure
of such reports, be validly deemed to be records used for
"correctional, law enforcement or licensing purposes" within the
meaning of the  disclosure exemption provisions of Gov Code, @
6254, subd (f), where, although pesticide spray reports had been
used to review applicators' licenses on various occasions, this was
not the primary purpose for which they were compiled, and where
there was no evidence that any of the reports were being put to
such purpose at the time of trial.  Uribe v Howie (1971) 19 Cal App
3d 194, 96 Cal Rptr 493.
    It is the duty of the Attorney General, as the authorized
representative of petitioning prison authorities, to assert in the
trial court their privilege under Evid. Code, @ 1040 to refuse to
disclose official information and to advise the trial court that
disclosure was expressly forbidden by Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f).
However, on failure of the Attorney General to assert the
privilege, the overwhelming public and governmental interest in the
security of the prison system and the safety of citizens requires
recognition of the privilege by the court.  Procunier v Superior
Court (1973) 35 Cal App 3d 211, 110 Cal Rptr 531.    Gov. Code, @
6254, subd. (f), exempting from disclosure all public files
compiled for law enforcement purposes, was not applicable to files
maintained by the Division of Industrial Safety which were the
subject of a discovery order in personal injury and wrongful death
actions arising out of the collapse of a bridge under construction.
While the Division of Industrial Safety does make investigations in
the course of enforcement of certain aspects of the California
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973, and undoubtedly
compiles files of its investigations, all of such files are not
necessarily files compiled for "law enforcement purposes" within
the meaning of the subdivision. The adjective  "law enforcement,"
as used in the subdivision, refers to law enforcement in the
traditional sense, that is, to the enforcement of penal statutes,
etc., and unless there is a concrete and definite prospect of such
criminal law enforcement, the subdivision does not apply.
Furthermore, the terms "law enforcement" and "investigatory files"
would not be given the same interpretations those terms have been
given in the regulations of the United States Department of Labor,
since the interpretations reflect the point of view  of the agency
and have not been approved by the federal courts.  State v Superior
Cour**74) 43 Cal App 3d 778, 117 Cal Rptr 726.    The Public
Records Act which establishes a general right of public access to
governmental documents does not authorize persons with arrest
records to have access to state arrest record information furnished
to a city by the Attorney General and Department of Justice, since
certain documents in the possession of  a municipality are
expressly exempt from disclosure under Gov. Code, @ 6254
including records of intelligence information or security
procedures of the office of the Attorney General and the Department
of Justice, or any such investigatory or security files compiled
for correctional or law enforcement purposes. Furthermore, Pen.
Code, @@ 11120--11127, dealing with the access of private
individuals to their arrest records, are special legislation and
they take precedence over any general legislation such as the
Public Records Act. Younger v Berkeley City Council (1975) 45 Cal
App 3d 825, 119 Cal Rptr 830.
    A church's verified complaint to require disclosure of any
records a police department maintained of its activities, and its
declarations and documents filed in support of its motion for
temporary injunction, which was denied, clearly established that
the records sought, if they in fact existed, were of the type
embraced in Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f), exempt as records of
"intelligence information," where the complaint referred repeatedly
to "information, documents, reports and records" allegedly
maintained by the police department relating to the church, where,
in oral argument on the motion for preliminary injunction, the
church's attorney admitted that "the statutory intent relating to
intelligence files and relating to investigatory files is that they
are exempt," and where it was plain that the records of
"intelligence  information" requested fell within the ambit of the
exemption.  Los Angeles Police Dept. v Superior Court (1977) 65 Cal
App 3d 661, 135 Cal Rptr 575. Interrogatories that seek information
about records exempt from public disclosure, either as
"intelligence information" exempt under Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd.
(f), or as exempt in the public interest, are not permitted.
Ancillary discovery through written interrogatories is not
permissible to determine whether "intelligence information" has
been gathered by police intelligence divisions, whether a file is
maintained therefore, or the names and titles of persons who might
have reviewed the file.  Los Angeles Police Dept. v  Superior Court
(1977) 65 Cal App 3d 661, 135 Cal Rptr 575.
    Disclosure of a public entity's investigatory or security
records is not prohibited under Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f),
unless the agency itself asserts  a privilege under that section.
Thus, police department employees were not entitled to an
injunction prohibiting disclosure of records by the police chief to
a citizens' review commission on the basis of privilege under Gov.
Code, @ 6254, subd. (f), where it did not appear that the city or
the department had asserted any privilege of nondisclosure.
Berkeley Police Asso. v Berkeley (1977) 76 Cal App 3d 931, 143 Cal
Rptr 255.    In an action under the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code,
@ 6250  et seq.), to compel the disclosure of various documents
utilized by the California Highway Patrol in training its officers,
the trial court properly exempted from disclosure matters dealing
with security and safety procedures of the highway patrol in the
performance of its police function (Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f)
(exemption for specified police records).  Northern Cal. Police
Practices Project v Craig (1979) 90 Cal App 3d 116, 153 Cal Rptr
173.
    Personal identifiers contained in certain law enforcement
documents where not exempt from disclosure under Gov. Code, @ 6254,
subd.  (c), since the exemption from disclosure provided by such
subdivision is confined to "personnel, medical, or similar files."
However, they were exempt under a similar exemption for personal
identifiers which was read into the "intelligence information"
exemption from disclosure provided by Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f).
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v Deukmejian (1982) 32
Cal 3d 440, 186 Cal Rptr 235, 651 P2d 822. In an action under the
Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.) to compel
disclosure of certain index cards compiled by law enforcement
departments which listed organized crime suspects, the trial court
erred in concluding the exemption from disclosure accorded
intelligence information (Gov. Code, @ 6254,  subd. (f)) was
confined to personal identifiers and information which might reveal
confidential sources. While not exempting all information
reasonably related to criminal activity, the "intelligence
information" exemption also bars the disclosure of information
supplied in confidence, even if such information does not reveal
the identity of a confidential source. Further, the exclusion of
personal identifiers includes information from which the identity
of the individual in question might be inferred.  American Civil
Liberties Union Foundation v Deukmejian (1982) 32 Cal 3d 440, 186
Cal Rptr 235, 651 P2d 822.
    In invoking the Public Record Act's exemption from disclosure
accorded investigatory records compiled for law enforcement
purposes (Gov.  Code, @ 6254, (f)), the requirement that the
information sought relate to a definite prospect of enforcement
proceedings is applicable only to information which is not itself
exempt from compelled disclosure, but claims exemption only as part
of an investigatory file. Information independently exempt, such as
intelligence information, is not subject to the requirement that it
relate to a definite prospect of enforcement proceedings.  American
Civil Liberties Union Foundation  v Deukmejian (1982) 32 Cal 3d
440, 186 Cal Rptr 235, 651 P2d 822.
    Financial data supplied by a waste disposal company to a city
which the city  relied on in granting a rate increase to the
company pursuant to an exclusive contract between the city and the
company for the collection of waste and garbage within the city
limits, was not exempt from disclosure under Gov. Code,  @ 6254,
subd. (n), which exempts from disclosure " [s]tatements of personal
worth or financial data required by a licensing agency and filed by
an applicant with such licensing agency to establish his personal
qualifications for the license, certificate, or permit applied
for." The term license within the meaning of @ 6254, subd. (n),
must be construed narrowly to give effect to the legislative intent
that favors disclosure over secrecy in government. If the
Legislature had intended a broad exemption to apply to any
financial statements  then it need not have hinged the exemption to
those filing applications for licensing agencies.  Although it
makes good sense to exempt license applicants,  that situation was
distinct from the type of contractual relationship that existed
between the city and the disposal company.  San Gabriel Tribune v
Superior Court (1983, 2d Dist) 143 Cal App 3d 762, 192 Cal Rptr
415.

  A sheriff's investigation report undertaken at the county's
instance to determine the validity of a jail inmate's tort
liability claim based on a jailhouse assault was not protected from
disclosure by Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd.  (f) (California Public
Records Act), which exempts from disclosure records of complaints
or investigations conducted for correctional, law enforcement or
licensing purposes. Even if the sheriff's report had law
enforcement implications, the exemption is applicable only when the
prospect of law enforcement is "concrete and definite." Register
Div. of Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v County of Orange (1984, 4th
Dist) 158 Cal App 3d 893, 205 Cal Rptr 92.
    Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, @ 6500 et
seq.), exemptions from disclosure of records of complaints or
investigations conducted  for correctional or law enforcement
purposes (Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f)) are  permissive, not
mandatory. Thus, it did not forbid disclosure of investigation
reports of an assault on a jail inmate undertaken in connection
with a tort claim, and, since disclosure was not forbidden by state
law, the absolute privilege of Evid. Code, @ 1040, subd. (b)(1),
granting governmental entities a  privilege against disclosure of
information if disclosure is forbidden by a federal or state
statute, was not applicable in an action by a newspaper against the
county for disclosure of the reports.  Register Div. of Freedom
Newspapers,  Inc. v County of Orange (1984, 4th Dist) 158 Cal App
3d 893, 205 Cal Rptr 92.    Under Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f)(2),
which provides an exemption from disclosure for " [r]ecords of
complaints to or investigations conducted by. . . any state or
local police agency," a city had a duty to provide information
contained in a police report to the public, notwithstanding the
report was not the result of a formal, written complaint made by a
citizen to the police department, but rather was the result of an
independent police investigation. By its terms, @ 6254, subd.
(f)(2), requires disclosure of information in investigatory files
"to the extent such information regarding crimes alleged or
committed or any other incident investigated is recorded." The
investigation by police was recorded. Therefore, the statute
required disclosure of specific information about the
investigation. If the language of @ 6254, subd. (f)(2), is in any
way ambiguous, it should be resolved in favor of the legislative
intent of the California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et
seq.) to maximize disclosure of the conduct of governmental
operations.  South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v City of Oceanside
(1984, 4th Dist) 160 Cal App 3d 261, 206 Cal Rptr 527.
     In light of the fact that the California Public Records Act (
Gov. Code, @   6250  et seq.) was modeled after the federal Freedom
of Information Act (5 U.S.C. @ 552), Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f),
which provides an exemption from disclosure for records of
complaints to or investigations conducted by any state or local
police agency, should receive a parallel construction with 5 U.S.C.
@ 552(b)(7), which exempts investigatory records compiled for law
enforcement purposes, including the 1974 amendments to @ 552(b)(7),
which limit the investigatory records exemption and were intended
to restate and clarify the original purpose of the federal act.
South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v City of Oceanside (1984, 4th Dist)
160 Cal App 3d 261, 206 Cal Rptr 527.
    The 1982 amendments to Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f), which
exempts from disclosure records of complaints to or investigations
conducted by any state or  local police agency, enacted as subds.
(1) and (2) of @ 6254, subd. (f), did not so significantly alter
the statute that its federal counterpart, 5 U.S.C. @ 552(b)(7), is
no longer an appropriate guide to its construction. The effect of
these amendments was simply to extend public access to information
contained in  agency records which are themselves exempt from
disclosure by @ 6254, subd. (f). The amendments are in keeping with
the original, shared purpose of the California Public Records Act
( Gov. Code, @ 6250 et seq.) and the federal Freedom of Information
Act (5 U.S.C.  @ 552) to provide public access to government
information.  South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v City of Oceanside
(1984, 4th Dist) 160 Cal App 3d 261, 206 Cal Rptr 527.    In a
declaratory relief action by a newspaper seeking to inspect or
obtain a  copy of a police report of an investigation of a high
school principal for his alleged failure to report an incident of
child abuse, the trial court erred in ruling that the report was
absolutely privileged under Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd.  (f), which
exempts from disclosure records of complaints to or investigations
by any state or local police agency. Under the California Public
Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250 et seq.), the newspaper was
entitled to a copy of the report if no confidential sources would
be revealed, disclosure would not interfere with enforcement
proceedings, no person would be deprived of a fair trial, release
of the report would not constitute an unwarranted invasion of
privacy, secret police investigative techniques or procedures would
not be revealed, and the life or physical safety of law enforcement
personnel would not be endangered. Accordingly, the trial court was
required to conduct an in camera inspection and to release the
report or parts thereof, or an accurate edited summary, unless the
court found disclosure would result in an invasion of statutorily
protected areas of information.  South Coast Newspapers, Inc. v
City of Oceanside (1984, 4th Dist) 160 Cal App 3d 261, 206 Cal Rptr
527.
    In a proceeding in which a newspaper petitioned pursuant to the
California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, $ 6250 et seq.) for an
order compelling the county sheriff to disclose certain
investigatory and disciplinary records, the trial court did not
sufficiently consider all requisite criteria in determining whether
the subject documents were entitled to exempt status. Thus, its
order directing disclosure of some of the documents, determining
that some were exempt, and determining that some would be disclosed
after protected information was redacted required redetermination.
Gov. Code, $ 6254, subd. (f), generally  exempts from public
disclosure law enforcement investigatory records and files.
However, not all documents contained in these records and files are
necessarily  exempt. Gov. Code, $ 6254, subd. (f), also sets forth
a listing of information contained in investigatory records and
files that is not exempt. The effect is to extend public access to
information contained in records that are themselves  exempted.
Therefore, matters contained in investigatory records and files are
entitled to a qualified privilege, and specific statutory and
judicial criteria  must be applied in determining whether
particular investigatory records are exempt. Williams v Superior
Court (1992, 4th Dist) 3 Cal App 4th 1292, 5 Cal Rptr 2d 142,
review gr.

   3. -Records of Complaints
   Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f), exempting from the disclosure
requirements of the Public Records Act, "records of complaints to,"
or investigations conducted  by, the office of the Attorney General
and the Department of Justice, and any state or local agency, or
any such investigatory or security files compiled by any other
state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement or
licensing purposes, does not violate First Amendment guarantees of
freedom to communicate. Decisional law generally accepts the
assumption that a statute calling for general disclosure may
validly define reasonably restricted areas of nondisclosure,
provided that they are justified by a genuine public policy
concern, such as the privacy of citizens whose information gets
into government  files.  Black Panther Party v Kehoe (1974) 42 Cal
App 3d 645, 117 Cal Rptr 106.
     Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f), exempting from the disclosure
requirements of the Public Records Act, "records of or complaints
to," or investigations conducted by, the office of the Attorney
General and the Department of Justice, and any state or local
police agency, "or any such investigatory. . . files compiled by
any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement
or licensing purposes," is properly interpreted as exempting
records of complaints, as well as records of investigation
maintained for licensing purposes by agencies of the Department of
Consumer Affairs. The words "any such" would be surplusage if they
did not embrace the same records as the preceding clause, and that
textual interpretation comports with the dual legislative concern,
appearing throughout the act, for individual privacy as well as
disclosure "concerning the conduct of the people's business." Both
complaining witnesses, who often demand anonymity, and the public
have an interest in the confidentiality of complaints of wrongdoing
prior to the inception of formal enforcement or disciplinary
proceedings.  Black Panther Party v Kehoe (1974) 42  Cal App 3d
645, 117 Cal Rptr 106.
    In holding that letters of complaint to the Bureau of
Collections and Investigative Services charging unethical or
abusive practices by licensed collection agencies are exempt from
disclosure as "records of complaint" within  the meaning of Gov.
Code, @ 6254, subd. (f), the trial court erred in failing to find
on the material factor, urged as a special basis of plaintiffs'
demand for  disclosure under the Public Records Act, of the
bureau's practice of furnishing  copies of consumer complaints to
the affected licensees. Gov. Code, @ 6254, setting forth various
categories of exemptions, and further providing that it is not to
be construed as "preventing" public inspection of exempted material
not otherwise prohibited by law, does not permit selective
disclosure. The practice  of disclosing complaints to the affected
licensees destroys the privilege of  confidentiality otherwise
permitted by the statute, and, when a record loses its exempt
status, it becomes subject to the provision of Gov. Code, @ 6253,
subd. (a), that "every citizen has a right to inspect any public
record." Black Panther Party v Kehoe (1974) 42 Cal App 3d 645, 117
Cal Rptr 106.
  The procedural regulations of the California Highway Patrol
governing the investigation of citizen complaints concerning
conduct of personnel in that department come within the meaning of
"Public Records" in Gov. Code, @ 6252, subd (d), defining terms
used in the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et  seq.), and
since such regulations are not themselves "records of complaints"
or  "investigations" within the meaning of Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd
(f), and are thus not exempt from disclosure thereunder, or under
Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd (k), they are required by the Public
Records Act to be made available by the department for public
inspection and copying.  Cook v Craig (1976) 55 Cal App 3d 773, 127
Cal Rptr 712.

   4. Pending Litigation; Discovery
   In a personal injury action against a city for battery by a
policeman, information relating to any suspension of the officer
resulting from the alleged battery would not be discoverable, in
view of the rule prohibiting the use of remedial measures
undertaken after an event to prove negligence or culpability in
connection with the event itself.  Los Angeles v Superior Court
(1973) 33 Cal App 3d 778, 109 Cal Rptr 365.

   A discovery order was in violation of prison officials'
privilege to refuse to disclose official information recognized by
Evid. Code, @ 1040 and Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (f) where the order
required disclosure of plans, plats, maps and  diagrams depicting
a correctional facility and lists compiled by prison authorities
for security purposes indicating inmate membership in rival gangs.
Procunier v Superior Court (1973) 35 Cal App 3d 211, 110 Cal Rptr
531.
    Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (b), exempting from disclosure records
"pertaining to" pending litigation to which a public agency is a
party, was not applicable to an order for discovery of information
and documents in the possession of the  Division of Industrial
Safety, in personal injury and wrongful death actions arising out
of the collapse of a bridge under construction. The exception in
question essentially provides public agencies with the protection
of the attorney-client privilege, including work product, for a
limited period while there is ongoing litigation, and the discovery
order did not require the disclosure of any documents or records
coming within the attorney-client privilege.  State v Superior
Court (1974) 43 Cal App 3d 778, 117 Cal Rptr 726.    In a wrongful
death action against a city and certain of its employees including
police officers who allegedly inflicted fatal gunshot wounds on the
deceased, the district attorney could not successfully resist
plaintiff's efforts to discover materials in his possession under
the absolute privilege established as to official information by
Evid. Code, @ 1040, subd (b)(1), if disclosure is forbidden by
federal or state statutes, on the ground that Gov. Code, @ 6254,
subd (f), a part of the Public Records Act relating to "records of
complaints to or investigations conducted by, or records of
intelligence information or security procedures of" law enforcement
agencies, forbids disclosure of such material. The statute, by its
terms, deals only with public inspection of certain governmental
documents, and the act further specifically provides in Gov. Code,
@ 6260, that its provision "shall not be deemed in any manner to
affect the rights of litigants, including parties to administrative
proceedings, under the laws of discovery." Shepherd v Superior
Court (1976) 17 Cal 3d 107, 130 Cal Rptr 257, 550 P2d 161.
    The doctrine of equal protection did not require release of the
records of a  sheriff's department investigation of a shooting
incident involving several juveniles to the mother of one of the
minors for her use in a civil action arising out of the incident
without the necessity of her obtaining a juvenile court order for
inspection of such records as required by Welf. & Inst. Code, @
827. The promotion of the rehabilitative purposes of the juvenile
law provides more than a valid reason to require the
confidentiality of juvenile records under the statute, which
provides a simple procedure (petition for a court order) under
which the mother could obtain the report but yet protect the other
minors involved.  Wescott v Yuba County (1980) 104 Cal App 3d 103,
163 Cal Rptr  385.    The trial court's discovery order in a
professor's defamation action against  his former university
employer that allowed the professor discovery of his tenure and
promotion files, save and except letters of recommendation or
reference to the university concerning the professor written when
he was being considered for employment constituted error insofar as
it failed to provide appropriate protection of the privacy
interests of those who had furnished confidential information for
the files after the professor's employment. Protection should have
been afforded not only to those who had furnished confidential
information prior to the professor's employment, but also to all
those who had subsequently furnished confidential information
concerning the professor's qualifications for employment,
promotion, additional compensation, or termination. Since there was
no compelling state purpose in maintenance of confidentiality of
the contents of letters of reference in the file, the professor was
entitled to the disclosure thereof, subject to protection of the
confidential communications' authors by withholding their names and
other identification. Courts should impose partial limitations
rather than outright denial of discovery when by doing so otherwise
affected constitutional rights may be preserved.  Board of Trustees
v Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal App 3d 516, 174 Cal Rptr 160.

   5. Evidentiary Privileges
   An agreement entered into between a school district and a
private corporation, providing for performance by the corporation
of research and development work and services for a fee, could not
be said to require the district to violate Gov. Code, @ 6253,
requiring generally that public records be open to inspection
during an agency's office hours, but giving the agency the right to
adopt regulations stating the procedures to be followed when making
records available, where the agreement specifically permitted the
disclosure of  any confidential material for which there was a
reasonable and proper need, on the condition that the person
receiving the material agree not to publish or sell it. Moreover,
Gov. Code, @ 6254, provides that nothing in the Public Records Act
shall be construed to require disclosure of records exempted by
provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege, and, under
Evid. Code, @  1060, the owner of a trade secret is privileged to
refuse to disclose, and to prevent another from disclosing the
secret.  California School Employees Asso. v Sunnyvale Elementary
School Dist. (1973) 36 Cal App 3d 46, 111 Cal Rptr 433.
    In an action by former faculty members of a state university
against the chancellor and others, predicated on their alleged
denial of tenure or retention in retaliation for opposing the
election of their department chairman, in which  the faculty
members made a strong showing in a motion for discovery that
certain official information was essential to determine whether
they were dismissed for exercising constitutional rights, rather
than for the stated reasons, the trial  court did not comply with
applicable principles requiring it, on being confronted with a
claim of conditional privilege for official information under
Evid. Code, @ 1040, subd. (b)(2), to engage in a weighing process
to determine whether the disclosure would be against the public
interest, where the trial court's one-sentence and one-word orders
denying the motions contained no findings that disclosure would be
against the public interest.  Parnes v Superior Court (1978) 81 Cal
App 3d 831, 146 Cal Rptr 818.
    Financial data supplied by a waste disposal company to a city
which the city relied on in granting a rate increase to the
disposal company pursuant to an exclusive contract between the city
and the waste disposal company for the collection of waste and
garbage within the city limits, was not exempt from disclosure as
a public record by Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (k), which exempts from
disclosure records exempted from disclosure under federal or state
law, including Evid. Code, @@ 1040 (privilege for official
information) and 1060 (privilege to protect trade secret). There
was no showing that the city would be injured by revealing the
data. Moreover, under Evid. Code, @ 1040, there was no showing that
disclosure of the information was against the public interest;
disclosure was shown to weigh in favor of the public's interest in
view of the fact that the rate increase amounted to a 15 to 25
percent increase in just two  years that the public--not the
city--would have to pay. Further, assurances of confidentiality
were insufficient in themselves to justify withholding pertinent
public information from the public.  Nor was a showing of egregious
conduct necessary to gain access to relevant data, since in many
cases knowledge of such could only be gained by access.  San
Gabriel Tribune v Superior Court (1983, 2d  Dist) 143 Cal App 3d
762, 192 Cal Rptr 415. Rejection of a county sheriff's claim for
exemption from disclosure to a television and broadcasting company
of records pertaining to licenses to carry concealed weapons, under
Gov. Code, @ 6255, the "catch-all" exemption to the general policy
of disclosure of public records under the Public Records Act ( Gov.
Code, @ 6250  et seq.), on the ground that the public interest
weighed in favor of disclosure as opposed to nondisclosure,
required rejection of a claim for exemption made by the sheriff
with respect to the same records, under Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd.
(k), exempting records, disclosure of which is exempted or
prohibited pursuant to provisions of federal or state law,
including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code
relating to privilege, since the same weighing process is involved
under both provisions. Rejection of the sheriff's claim for
exemption from disclosure of the records sought, based on Evid.
Code, @ 1040, which creates a privilege for official information
acquired  in confidence, under certain circumstances, was mandated
for the same reason. CBS, Inc. v Block (1986) 42 Cal 3d 646, 230
Cal Rptr 362, 725 P2d 470.

   6. Personnel Matters
   In a prosecution of a state prison inmate for the murder of a
prison employee, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying defendant's pretrial discovery motion for production, for
impeachment purposes, of the complete personnel files of all prison
staff members and the inmate files of all prisoners that each side
was considering calling to testify at trial, where the  prosecutor
had offered to go through the files and disclose any material which
might be relevant to impeachment, but defense counsel apparently
rejected that offer. The blanket request failed to describe the
requested information with sufficient specificity and there is a
legitimate public interest in protecting against wholesale
disclosure of the matter requested.  People v Gaulden (1974) 36 Cal
App 3d 942, 111 Cal Rptr 803.
    Exemption provisions of Federal Freedom of Information Act,
rather than Ev C @ 1040 and Gov C @ 6254(f), are determinative in
suit against California Adult Authority on defendant's motion to
withhold allegedly privileged personnel files.  Kerr v United
States District Court (1975) 511 F2d 192.
    In determining, under Gov. Code, @ 6259, whether a public
official is justified in refusing to publicly disclose records of
investigations of complaints against employees on the ground that
the public interest in protection of personal privacy outweighs the
public interest in disclosure (Gov. Code, @@ 6254, subd. (c), and
6255), the court should consider whether there is  reasonable cause
to believe the charges were well founded and whether they were
substantial in nature. Thus, in an action to compel disclosure of
an audit report of financial activities of university employees,
the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to order
disclosure of portions of the audit report that indicated certain
substantial charges against the employees to be well founded.
American Federation of State, etc. Employees v Regents of
University of Cal. (1978) 80 Cal App 3d 913, 146 Cal Rptr 42.
Information sought by a citizens' assistant, appointed pursuant to
a city charter, relating to a complaining citizen's evaluation, by
a city department, on her application for employment was not exempt
from disclosure under the Public Records Act. The assistant was
clothed with official dignity and prestige comparable to that of
other city officials and his official acts were those of the city
itself. A disclosure, such as the one sought, by one official or
department to another is not a "public disclosure." In the exercise
of his functions, the citizens' assistant, like all other of the
city's officials and employees, was subject to the provisions of
any law forbidding public, or private, disclosure of designated
records or information to citizens or others.  Parrott v Rogers
(1980) 103 Cal App 3d 377, 163 Cal Rptr 75.
    Financial data supplied by a waste disposal company to a city
which the city  relied on in granting a rate increase to the
company pursuant to an exclusive contract between the city and
company for the collection of waste and garbage within the city
limits, was not exempt from disclosure as a public record by Gov.
Code, @ 6254, subd. (c), which exempts from disclosure "
[p]ersonal, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which
would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." When
the city publically based its decision to permit the company to
increase waste and garbage collection rates on the financial data
supplied by the disposal company, the data lost its exempt status.
San Gabriel Tribune v Superior Court (1983, 2d Dist) 143 Cal App 3d
762, 192 Cal Rptr 415.
    Two letters in a city firefighter's personnel file--one letter
appointing him to the position of transit administrator and the
other rescinding the appointment and reinstating him as a
firefighter--were not exempt from disclosure under Gov. Code, @
6254, subd. (c), which exempts personnel files, the disclosure of
which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
from disclosure under the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250
et seq.). The letters contained no personal information.  Although
reclassification may be embarrassing to an individual, in
California, employment contracts are public records and may not be
considered exempt. (Gov.  Code, @ 6254.8.) The letters were
memoranda of the firefighter's appointment to a position and the
rescission thereof; they therefore manifested his employment
contract. Because the letters regarded business transactions and
contained no personal information, the trial court properly ordered
disclosure of the letters under the act.  Braun v City of Taft
(1984, 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654.
  The trial court did not err in ordering disclosure of the first
page of a city firefighter's salary card under the Public Records
Act ( Gov.  Code, @   6250  et seq.), to show that the
firefighter's employment record had been altered, although the card
contained personal information (the firefighter's address, birth
date, phone number, social security and credit union numbers, and
salary) which was not relevant to the inquiry. The trial court
could have ordered the personal information taken out before the
card was made public; however, the data listed on the card was not
in any way embarrassing and, although personal, was not secret.
Thus, the court was within its discretion in  finding that the
disclosure of the face sheet of the salary card would not
constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Gov.
Code, @ 6254,  subd. (c), and was not exempt from disclosure
thereunder.  Braun v City of Taft  (1984, 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d
332, 201 Cal Rptr 654.
    Although Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (c), exempts personnel,
medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute
an unwarranted invasion of privacy, from disclosure under the
Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.), the Legislature,
by using the word "files," did not intend to exempt the  entire
file and thus to prohibit the selective disclosure of certain
documents from the file. In view of  Gov. Code, @ 6250,  which
states that "In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mindful of
the right of individuals to privacy, finds and declares that access
to information concerning the conduct of the people's business is
a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state"
and the policy favoring disclosure of public records, it is
unlikely that the Legislature intended such an all or nothing
approach.  Braun v City of Taft  (1984, 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d
332, 201 Cal Rptr 654.
    In cases involving the disclosure of personnel, medical, or
similar files under the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et
seq.), the weighing process under Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (c), to
determine whether the disclosure would constitute an unwarranted
invasion of privacy, and thus make the records exempt  from
disclosure, requires a consideration of almost exactly the same
elements that should be considered under Gov. Code, @ 6255, which
provides that a public  agency shall justify withholding any record
by demonstrating that, on the facts  of the particular case, the
public interest served by not making the record public clearly
outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.
Braun v City of Taft (1984, 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal
Rptr 654.
    Disclosure of material from a city employee's personnel file
under the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.) was not
prohibited by the employee's constitutional right to privacy (Cal.
Const., art. I, @ 1). The balancing test employed by the trial
court in its determination that the records were not exempt under
Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd. (c), because they did not constitute an
unwarranted invasion of privacy, is the same one which should be
utilized in weighing the right of privacy against the right of the
public to oversee the actions of governmental employees. The trial
court carefully considered the clash between the need for public
disclosure of its business and the need of the individual to
privacy when making its determination under @ 6254, subd. (c); no
more was required under Cal.  Const., art. I, @ 1.  Braun v City of
Taft (1984,  5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654.


                         GOVERNMENT CODE

TITLE 1. GENERAL                             DIVISION
7. Miscellaneous          CHAPTER 3.5. Inspection of Public Records
                Cal Gov Code @ 6254.5 (1993)

@ 6254.5.  Disclosure of otherwise exempt records

   Notwithstanding any other provisions of the law, whenever a
state or local agency discloses a public record which is otherwise
exempt from this chapter, to any member of the public, this
disclosure shall constitute a waiver of the exemptions specified in
Sections 6254, 6254.7, or other similar provisions of law. For
purposes of this section, "agency" includes a member, agent,
officer, or employee of the agency acting within the scope of his
or her membership, agency, office, or employment.

   This section, however, shall not apply to disclosures:

   (a) Made pursuant to the Information Practices Act (commencing
with Section 1798 of the Civil Code) or discovery proceedings.

   (b) Made through other legal proceedings.

   (c) Within the scope of disclosure of a statute which limits
disclosure of specified writings to certain purposes.

   (d) Not required by law, and prohibited by formal action of an
elected legislative body of the local agency which retains the
writings.

   (e) Made to any governmental agency which agrees to treat the
disclosed material as confidential. Only persons authorized in
writing by the person in charge of the agency shall be permitted to
obtain the information.  Any information obtained by the agency
shall only be used for purposes which are consistent with existing
law.

   (f) Of records relating to a financial institution or an
affiliate thereof, if the disclosures are made to the financial
institution or affiliate by a state agency responsible for the
regulation or supervision of the financial institution or
affiliate.

HISTORY:
      Added Stats 1981 ch 968 @ 3.
    Amended Stats 1983 ch 101 @ 57. Amended Stats 1987 ch 1453 @ 5.

NOTES:
AMENDMENTS:
 1983 Amendment: Routine code maintenance.
 1987 Amendment: (1) Deleted the former second sentence of the
first paragraph which read: "For the purposes of this section,
before a disclosure of an otherwise exempt public record by a state
or local agency to a federal agency, is made, the federal agency
shall agree in writing to comply with this chapter."; and (2) added
subds (e) and (f).
   COLLATERAL REFERENCES:
   LAW REVIEW ARTICLES:
  Review of Selected 1987 Legislation.  19 Pacific LJ 456.

NOTES OF DECISIONS:
    Two letters in a city firefighter's personnel file--one letter
appointing him to the position of transit administrator and the
other rescinding the appointment and reinstating him as a
firefighter--were not exempt from disclosure under Gov. Code, @
6254, subd. (c), which exempts personnel files, the disclosure of
which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
from disclosure under the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250
et seq.). The letters contained no personal information.  Although
reclassification may be embarrassing to an individual, in
California, employment contracts are public records and may not be
considered exempt. (Gov.  Code, @ 6254.8.) The letters were
memoranda of the firefighter's appointment to a position and the
rescission thereof; they therefore manifested his employment
contract. Because the letters regarded business transactions and
contained no personal information, the trial court properly ordered
disclosure of the letters under the act.  Braun v City of Taft
(1984, 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654.
  A city failed to demonstrate that the public interest would be
served by withholding certain personnel records of a city employee
under Gov.  Code, @ 6255, which provides that a public agency shall
justify withholding any public record by demonstrating that, on the
facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not
making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest
served by disclosure of the record, despite the city's claims it
would  be difficult to secure good public employees if every
mistake or error in judgment were disseminated for public
consumption, and to obtain candid information from personnel
applicants if they knew the information provided would be public
knowledge. Since the records were not exempt under Gov. Code, @
6254, subd. (c), because they did not constitute an unwarranted
invasion of privacy, it followed that the public interest asserted
by the city under @ 6255  would not clearly outweigh the public
interest served by disclosure of the records. Finally, the clear
provisions of Gov.  Code, @ 6254.8 governed, for it  provides, in
part, that every employment contract is not subject to @ 6255.
Braun v City of Taft (1984, 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal
Rptr 654.

                     GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 1. GENERAL                             DIVISION
7. Miscellaneous        CHAPTER 3.5. Inspection of Public Records
                 Cal Gov Code @ 6255 (1993)

@ 6255.  Withholding records from inspection; Justification; Public
interest

   The agency shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating
that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of
this chapter or that on the facts of the particular case the public
interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs
the public interest served by disclosure of the record.

HISTORY:      Added Stats 1968 ch 1473 @ 39.

NOTES:
COLLATERAL REFERENCES:
    Witkin & Epstein, Criminal Law (2d ed) @ 1297.
    Witkin Evidence (3d ed) @@ 1251, 1258.
    Cal Jur 3d (Rev) Consumer and Borrower Protection Laws @ 316.
    Cal Jur 3d Records and Recording Laws @ 7.
    Cal Trial Handbook 2d (BW, 1987) @ 28:17.
    Ehrman & Flavin, Taxing California Property (3d ed) @ 15:01.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS:    Confidentiality of venereal disease
records, compiled and kept by local health departments pursuant to
regulation of State Department of Public Health;  right of health
officer receiving subpoena for such record to assert privilege
pursuant to Ev C @ 1040.  53 Ops Atty Gen 10.

  Availability for public inspection of files of Board of Pilot
Commissioners;  authority of board to impose requirement that
persons wishing to inspect material on file do so only in presence
of commissioner or employee of Pilot  Commission and only at
reasonable hours.  53 Ops Atty Gen 136.
    Confidentiality of certain details and requirement to disclose
information in proposed prepaid health plans.  58 Ops Atty Gen 371.
  Records of state summary criminal information contained in
concealed weapons  permit records of a sheriff may not be disclosed
to the public. The records of the sheriff's investigation of the
qualification and fitness of an applicant for a concealed weapon
permit are exempt from public disclosure by Government Code,  @
6254 (f). The application for and record of a permit for a
concealed weapon are open to public inspection unless they contain
exceptional information by which the sheriff can demonstrate that
the public interest served by not making  such records public
clearly outweighs the public interest in their disclosure as
provided in Government Code, @ 6255.  62 Ops Atty Gen 595.
    Those financial statements requested and received by county
from potential bidders for refuse disposal contracts are
confidential and are not open to public when they are examined by
committee of board of supervisors at meeting subject to the Brown
Act.  68 Ops Atty Gen 16.

ANNOTATIONS:    Court's power to determine upon government's claim
of privilege, whether official information contains state secrets
or other matters disclosure of which is against public interest.
32 ALR2d 391.


NOTES OF DECISIONS    Generally, when the public interest in
securing information necessitates the  free communication of such
information on a privileged, confidential basis, disclosure of
information so secured is against public interest.  Terzian v
Superior Court (1970) 10 CA3d 286, 88 Cal Rptr 806.    In a
proceeding for appointment of a guardian of a minor child committed
to the care of the welfare department and placed in a foster home
for adoption, the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the
welfare department to answer interrogatories as to the identity of
persons having custody of the child following commitment and other
particulars concerning the activities of the department in
connection with attempts to arrange adoptive placement for the
child, where the information concerning the placement and adoption
of the child  was acquired in confidence by the department and its
employees in the course of  their duties, and was not open or
officially disclosed to the public prior to the time a claim of
privilege was made, and where no preliminary basis had been
established for finding that the adoption procedure was not running
its proper course, and that the agency was unfit to have temporary
custody of the child, or that it was improbable that the child
would be adopted; while there is no absolute statutory ban on
disclosure of such information, nor any absolute privilege with
respect thereto, Evid Code, @ 1040, requires a weighing of
necessity for preserving confidentiality with the necessity for
disclosure in the interest of justice.  Terzian v Superior Court
(1970) 10 CA3d 286, 88 Cal Rptr 806.
    Under Pen. Code, @ 2081.5, limiting access to a prisoner's
records to the authorities listed therein, Gov Code, @ 6253, subd
(f), exempting certain prison records from the general disclosure
provisions of the statute, and Gov Code, @ 6255, authorizing the
withholding of records for reasons of public policy, the news media
was properly denied access to the prison files of an inmate facing
serious criminal charges in which criminal proceedings the court
had entered a publicity order in protection of the inmate's right
to a fair trial.  Yarish v Nelson (1972) 27 CA3d 893, 104 Cal Rptr
205.
    The practice of the Bureau of Collections and Investigative
Services of furnishing copies of consumer complaints charging
unethical or abusive practices by licensed collection agencies to
the affected licensees while refusing to disclose them to other
citizens is not justified by Gov.  Code, @ 6255, authorizing
nondisclosure when the "public interest served by not making the
record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by
disclosure of the  record," and provisions authorizing taking up
consumer complaints with licensees in an attempt to resolve and
mediate disputes. The mediation statutes do not call for physical
delivery of copies of consumer complaints, but only authorize
notification "of the nature of the complaint," and there is nothing
in section 6255, authorizing selective disclosure of records.
Black Panther Party v  Kehoe (1974) 42 CA3d 645, 117 Cal Rptr 106.
  A resolution by a city council purporting to provide citizens and
residents of the city with access to, and to establish procedures
for challenging the accuracy of, state criminal offender record
information compiled by the state, was not a matter of purely
municipal concern, in view of Gov. Code, @ 6255, which gives state
agencies the right to control access to its own records, and Pen.
Code, @@ 11076 and 11081, which enjoin the Department of Justice
itself from disclosing state criminal offender record information
except where authorized by statute, and charging the Attorney
General with responsibility for the security of such information
and directing him to prevent its unauthorized disclosure.  Younger
v Berkeley City Council (1975) 45 CA3d 825, 119 Cal Rptr 830.    In
determining, under Gov. Code, @ 6259, whether a public official is
justified in refusing to publicly disclose records of investigation
of complaints against employees on the ground that the public
interest in protection of personal privacy outweighs the public
interest in disclosure (Gov. Code, @@ 6254, subd. (c), and 6255),
the court should consider whether there is  reasonable cause to
believe the charges were well founded and whether they were
substantial in nature. Thus, in an action to compel disclosure of
an audit report of financial activities of university employees,
the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to order
disclosure of portions of the audit report that indicated certain
substantial charges against the employees to be well founded.
American Federation of State, etc. Employees v Regents of
University of Cal. (1978) 80 CA3d 913, 146 Cal Rptr 42.
    In ruling on a request for the disclosure of information under
the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.), the burdens
and costs of disclosure,  including any expense and inconvenience
involved in segregating nonexempt from exempt information, must be
weighed against the public interest served by disclosure (Gov.
Code, @ 6255). Thus, law enforcement officials were entitled to
refuse disclosure of certain index cards which listed organized
crime suspects,  even though some of the information fell outside
the exemption for intelligence information (Gov. Code, @ 6254,
subd. (f)), where the benefit from disclosure of the nonexempt
portions was marginal and speculative and where the burden of
segregating exempt from nonexempt information would be substantial.
However, the disclosure of certain computer printouts was required,
where the information on such printouts was not confidential and
did not involve confidential sources, and where the task of
segregating exempt material was thus reduced to one of excising
personal identifiers. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v
Deukmejian (1982) 32 C3d 440, 186 Cal Rptr 235, 651 P2d 822.    In
proceedings brought under the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @
6250  et seq.), by an applicant for special deputy status to compel
the sheriff's department to permit inspection of his application
file, the trial court erred in concluding as a matter of law,
without a factual determination, that all matters contained in the
file were privileged. Although matters obtained with an implicit or
explicit understanding of confidentiality were not subject to
disclosure, the burden of demonstrating the need for
confidentiality as to all of the materials in the file, which was
not covered by an express statutory exemption, rested on the agency
claiming the privilege. When an in camera hearing pursuant to Evid.
Code, @ 915, subd. (b), is the only means available to the agency
to meet its burden, then it is an abuse of discretion not to hold
such a hearing to segregate nonprivileged material.  Johnson v
Winter (1982, 1st Dist) 127 Cal App 3d 435, 179 Cal Rptr 585.
    In a mandate proceeding in which three hospitals that had been
audited by the Department of Health Services with respect to their
Medi-Cal program services sought disclosure of the department's
audit manual, the trial court correctly concluded that the
department had justified the withholding of the fiscal portion of
the manual as permitted by Gov. Code, @ 6255 (a part of the Public
Records Act) by showing that the public interest served by not
making the record public clearly outweighed the public interest in
disclosure.  After an in camerainspection of the material the court
agreed with the department that the undisclosed portion of the
manual contained its "game plan" or strategy for audits by which
particular expenditures are selected for scrutiny because they tend
to reveal spending patterns relevant to ascertaining compliance
with the Medi-Cal regulations, and that disclosure would allow
Medi-Cal providers to circumvent governing regulations by
manipulating expenditure itemizations. There is no perceptible
public interest in a disclosure which would enable Medi-Cal
providers who have violated governing statutes and regulations to
escape detection.  Eskaton Monterey Hospital v Myers (1982, 3d
Dist) 134 Cal App 3d 788, 184 Cal Rptr 840.
    Financial data supplied by a waste disposal company to a city
which the city  relied on in granting a rate increase to the
disposal company pursuant to an exclusive contract between the city
and waste disposal company for the collection of waste and garbage
within the city limits was not exempt from disclosure as a public
record by Gov. Code, @ 6255, which places a burden on a public
agency to justify withholding a public record on the basis of a
showing that the public interest served in nondisclosure outweighs
the public interest in disclosure. Although the city and the
disposal company might have legitimate  privacy interests to
protect, yet the interests on the part of the city in not killing
future information-gathering abilities in business transactions,
and on  the part of the disposal company in jeopardizing
competitive advantages, did not outweigh the public's need to be
informed of the provision of governmental services contracted on
behalf of the residents.  San Gabriel Tribune v Superior  Court
(1983, 2d Dist) 143 Cal App 3d 762, 192 Cal Rptr 415.
    Even if a record is found to be nonexempt under Gov. Code, @
6254, it can still be withheld under Gov. Code, @ 6255, which
provides that a public agency shall justify withholding any record
by demonstrating that it is exempt under the express provisions of
the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.) or that on the
facts of the particular case the public interest served by not
making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest
served by disclosure of the record. The burden of demonstrating a
need for nondisclosure is on the agency claiming the right to
withhold the information.  Braun v City of Taft (1984, 5th Dist)
154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654.
  A city failed to demonstrate that the public interest would be
served by withholding certain personnel records of a city employee
under Gov.  Code, @ 6255, which provides that a public agency shall
justify withholding any public record by demonstrating that, on the
facts of the particular case, the public interest served by not
making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest
served by disclosure of the record, despite the city's claims it
would  be difficult to secure good public employees if every
mistake or error in judgment were disseminated for public
consumption, and to obtain candid information from personnel
applicants if they knew the information provided would be public
knowledge. Since the records were not exempt under Gov. Code, @
6254, subd. (c), because they did not constitute an unwarranted
invasion of privacy, it followed that the public interest asserted
by the city under @ 6255  would not clearly outweigh the public
interest served by disclosure of the records. Finally, the clear
provisions of Gov.  Code, @ 6254.8 governed, for it  provides, in
part, that every employment contract is not subject to @ 6255.
Braun v City of Taft (1984, 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal
Rptr 654.
    Rejection of a county sheriff's claim for exemption from
disclosure to a television and broadcasting company of records
pertaining to licenses to carry concealed weapons, under Gov. Code,
@ 6255, the "catch-all" exemption to the general policy of
disclosure of public records under the Public Records Act ( Gov.
Code, @ 6250 et seq.), on the ground that the public interest
weighed in favor of disclosure as opposed to nondisclosure,
required rejection of a claim for exemption made by the sheriff
with respect to the same records, under Gov. Code, @ 6254, subd.
(k), exempting records, disclosure of which is exempted or
prohibited pursuant to provisions of federal or state law,
including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code
relating to privilege, since the same weighing process is involved
under both provisions. Rejection of the sheriff's claim for
exemption from disclosure of the records sought, based on Evid.
Code, @ 1040, which creates a privilege for official information
acquired  in confidence, under certain circumstances, was mandated
for the same reason. CBS, Inc. v Block (1986) 42 Cal 3d 646, 230
Cal Rptr 362, 725 P2d 470.
    Gov. Code, @ 6255, requiring the trial court to weigh the
public interest served by nondisclosure of a public record against
the public interest served by disclosure, does not constitute a
statutory direction to the trial court that disclosure is either
compelled or not compelled. It is a direction that the court act
according to an authorized, prescribed procedure.  If a court acts
contrary to the authorized procedure, it acts in excess of its
jurisdiction. Times Mirror Co. v Superior Court, County of
Sacramento (1990, 3rd Dist) 217 Cal App 3d 360, 265 Cal Rptr 844,
review gr (1990, Cal) 269 Cal Rptr 73, 790 P2d 237.

  In an action by a newspaper against the Governor in order to
obtain disclosure of the Governor's appointment schedules and
calendars under the Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et
seq.), the trial court erred in finding that the requested
materials were within the parameters of the public interest
exemption of Gov. Code, @ 6255, without first conducting an in
camera review. Disclosure of the material would not thwart the free
and candid exchange of ideas, since the content of the Governor's
meetings was not sought. Further,  the question of whether
disclosure of the material would threaten the Governor's security
could not be resolved without an in camera review. If in the course
of  such review the Governor were able to demonstrate such a
danger, the released material or the endangering portion could be
deleted.  Times Mirror Co. v Superior Court, County of Sacramento
(1990, 3rd Dist) 217 Cal App 3d 360, 265 Cal Rptr 844, review gr
(1990, Cal) Cal Rptr 73, 790 P2d 237.
    In an action by a tax-advising business seeking to compel
disclosure of records of the State Board of Equalization regarding
its interpretation and application of tax regulations, the board
could not avoid disclosure merely because of the burden of
producing the records. Gov. Code, @ 6255 (withholding records),
requires the court to look to the facts of a particular case in
balancing the benefits and burdens of disclosure, and the board had
the burden of showing that the request was too onerous. However,
the public interest in disclosure was substantial, and the board
overstated the burden of segregating exempt from nonexempt
material. There is nothing in the California Public Records Act
( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.) to suggest that a records request
must impose no burden on the government agency. Moreover, the trial
court found that  the burden on the board's staff was sufficiently
alleviated by the board retaining outside counsel to perform the
segregation and by the fact that the tax-advising business would
pay the attendant costs.  State Bd. of Equalization  v Superior
Court (1992, 3rd Dist) 10 Cal App 4th 1177, 13 Cal Rptr 2d 342.
The State Board of Equalization could not avoid disclosure, under
the California Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.), of
records regarding its interpretation and application of tax
regulations merely because of the risk that confidential material
could be inadvertently disclosed despite  careful editing. The past
practice of the board, and exemplars of documents provided under
that practice, showed that the board's fears were unwarranted.
State Bd. of Equalization v Superior Court (1992, 3rd Dist) 10 Cal
App 4th 1177, 13 Cal Rptr 2d 342.
    The State Board of Equalization could not avoid disclosure of
records regarding its interpretation and application of tax
regulations merely because the tax-advising business seeking
disclosure was a commercial entity intending to use the material
for commercial purposes. The California Public Records Act (  Gov.
Code, @ 6250  et seq.) does not differentiate among those who seek
access  to public information. It imposes no limits upon who may
seek information or what he or she may do with it. What is material
is the public interest in disclosure, not the private interest of
a requesting party. Gov.  Code, @ 6255 (withholding records), does
not take into consideration the requesting party's profit motives
or needs. Although the tax-advising business was a commercial
entity, it served the public interest in making available the
board's working law.  State Bd. of Equalization v Superior Court
(1992, 3rd Dist) 10 Cal App 4th 1177, 13 Cal Rptr 2d 342.

                      GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 1. GENERAL                             DIVISION
7. Miscellaneous        CHAPTER 3.5. Inspection of Public Records

                   Cal Gov Code @ 6259 (1993)

@ 6259.  Order to show cause; In camera inspection; Reviewability
of determination; Costs and attorney fees

   (a) Whenever it is made to appear by verified petition to the
superior court  of the county where the records or some part
thereof are situated that certain public records are being
improperly withheld from a member of the public, the
court shall order the officer or person charged with withholding
the records to  disclose the public record or show cause why he or
she should not do so. The court shall decide the case after
examining the record in camera, if permitted by subdivision (b) of
Section 915 of the Evidence Code, papers filed by the parties and
any oral argument and additional evidence as the court may allow.

   (b) If the court finds that the public official's decision to
refuse disclosure is not justified under Section 6254 or 6255, he
or she shall order the public official to make the record public.
If the judge determines that the  public official was justified in
refusing to make the record public, he or she shall return the item
to the public official without disclosing its content with an order
supporting the decision refusing disclosure.

   (c) In an action filed on or after January 1, 1991, an order of
the court, either directing disclosure by a public official or
supporting the decision of the public official refusing disclosure,
is not a final judgment or order within the meaning of Section
904.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure from which an appeal may be
taken, but shall be immediately reviewable by petition to the
appellate court for the issuance of an extraordinary writ. Upon
entry of any order pursuant to this section, a party shall, in
order to obtain review of the order, file a petition within 10 days
after service upon him or her of a written notice of entry of the
order, or within such further time not exceeding 20 days as
the trial court may for good cause allow. If the notice is served
by mail, the period within which to file the petition shall be
increased by five days. A stay of an order or judgment shall not be
granted unless the petitioning party demonstrates it will otherwise
sustain irreparable damage and probable success on the merits. Any
person who fails to obey the order of the court shall be cited to
show cause why he or she is not in contempt of court.

   (d) The court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney
fees to the plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation
filed pursuant to this section. The costs and fees shall be paid by
the public agency of which the public official is a member or
employee and shall not become a personal liability of the public
official. If the court finds that the plaintiff's case is clearly
frivolous, it shall award court costs and reasonable attorney fees
to the public agency.

HISTORY:
  Added Stats 1968 ch 1473 @ 39; Amended Stats 1975 ch 1246 @ 9.
  Amended Stats 1984 ch 802 @ 1; Stats 1990 ch 908 @ 2 (SB 2272).

NOTES:
AMENDMENTS:
    1975 Amendment: Added the fourth through sixth sentences of the
second paragraph.
    1984 Amendment: (1) Added subdivision designations; (2) added
"or she" wherever it appears; (3) added the first sentence of subd
(c); and (4) substituted "The" for "Such" at the beginning of the
second sentence of subd (d).
    1990 Amendment (1) Deleted "the provisions of" before "Section
6254" in subd  (b); (2) amended the first sentence of subd (c) by
(a) substituting "January 1,  1991" for "January 1, 1985"; and (b)
deleting "of review as defined in Section 1067 of the Code of Civil
Procedure" at the end; and (3) added the second, third, and fourth
sentences in subd (c).

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S OPINIONS:
    Public records--privilege. 1968 AJ 7152.

CROSS REFERENCES:
    Acts or omissions constituting contempt: CCP @ 1209.
Procedure for determining claims of privilege: Ev C @@ 404, 405,
914.

COLLATERAL REFERENCES:
    Witkin & Epstein, Criminal Law (2d ed) @ 1297.
    Witkin Evidence (3d ed) @@ 1253, 1259.
    Cal Practice (Rev) Ch 20 Discovery Proceedings.
    Ehrman & Flavin, Taxing California Property (3d ed) @ 15:01.
    B-W Cal Civ Prac, Procedure @ 31:99.

LAW REVIEW ARTICLES:
    Review of Selected 1984 Legislation.  16 Pacific LJ 556.

NOTES OF DECISIONS:
    It was not error for the trial court to refuse to make the in
camera inspection authorized by Gov Code, @ 6259, of an inmate's
prison records in a mandate action seeking disclosure to the news
media of such records, where such  records were not public records
as a matter of law, where such an inspection was thus not necessary
to decide whether the information was subject to official
privilege, and where there was no abuse of the discretion of the
court in such refusal.  Yarish v Nelson (1972) 27 CA3d 893, 104 Cal
Rptr 205. In a citizens' action seeking the discovery of the rules
and regulations of the Department of the California Highway Patrol
governing the investigation and  disposition of citizens'
complaints of police misconduct, plaintiffs were not entitled to
injunctive relief based on their prayer that, in effect, all rules
and regulations relating to a citizen complaint procedure be
promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act
(Gov. Code, @ 11370 et seq.),where, in view of exclusions from the
act such as regulations involving only the internal management of
state agencies (Gov.  Code, @ 11371), the prayer was much too
broad, where, furthermore, added to the presumption that the
department had  acted properly in this regard was its assertion
that it had, in fact, complied with the act and continued to
comply, and where, in any event, on receipt of information,
including regulations, pursuant to the Public Records Act ( Gov.
Code, @ 6250  et seq.), including in-camera procedures under Gov.
Code, @ 6259, to which plaintiffs were entitled, plaintiffs would
also be entitled to bring an action under Gov. Code, @ 11440, of
the Administrative Procedure Act, or to seek other remedies,
including mandate, regarding subject matter specific enough to
permit the issuance of a definite and enforceable order.  Cook v
Craig (1976) 55 CA3d 773, 127 Cal Rptr 712.
    In determining, under Gov. Code, @ 6259, whether a public
official is justified in refusing to publicly disclose records of
investigations of complaints against employees on the ground that
the public interest in protection of personal privacy outweighs the
public interest in disclosure (Gov. Code, @@ 6254, subd. (c), and
6255), the court should consider whether there is  reasonable cause
to believe the charges were well founded and whether they were
substantial in nature. Thus, in an action to compel disclosure of
an audit report of financial activities of university employees,
the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to order
disclosure of portions of the audit report that indicated certain
substantial charges against the employees to be well founded.
American Federation of State, etc. Employees v Regents of
University of Cal. (1978) 80 CA3d 913, 146 Cal Rptr 42.
    In proceedings brought under the Public Records Act ( Gov.
Code, @ 6250  et seq.), by an applicant for special deputy status
to compel the sheriff's department to permit inspection of his
application file, the trial court erred in concluding as a matter
of law, without a factual determination, that all matters contained
in the file were privileged. Although matters obtained with an
implicit or explicit understanding of confidentiality were not
subject to disclosure, the burden of demonstrating the need for
confidentiality as to all of the materials in the file, which was
not covered by an express statutory exemption, rested on the agency
claiming the privilege. When an in camera hearing pursuant to Evid.
Code, @ 915, subd. (b), is the only means available to the agency
to meet its burden, then it is an abuse of discretion not to hold
such a hearing to segregate nonprivileged material.  Johnson v
Winter (1982, 1st Dist) 127 Cal App 3d 435, 179 Cal Rptr 585.
    In an action by a city councilman seeking a declaration that
certain records relating to the employment of a city employee were
public records subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act
( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.), and seeking a writ of mandate to
compel the city to set aside its action censuring him for
disclosing such records, the trial court properly denied attorney
fees to the councilman under Gov. Code, @ 6259, which provides for
an award of reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff in
proceedings to compel disclosure of public records. The
councilman's defense of his activities at the grievance hearing
before the city council and the instant action were not the type of
litigation envisioned in @ 6259. The councilman could be seen as
acting with the primary purpose of protecting his reputation as a
member of the city council, rather than as a member of the public
seeking withheld public information. Braun v City of Taft (1984,
5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d 332, 201 Cal Rptr 654.
    Gov. Code, @ 6259, which authorizes members of the public to
institute judicial proceedings to compel disclosure of public
records that are being improperly withheld, and which authorizes
the court to award reasonable attorney fees to the plaintiff if he
prevails, was enacted to carry out the purposes of the California
Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.).  Through the
device of awarding attorney fees, citizens can enforce its salutary
objectives.  Braun v City of Taft (1984, 5th Dist) 154 Cal App 3d
332, 201 Cal Rptr 654.
    To determine a claim of exemption from the California Public
Records Act's disclosure provisions (Gov. Code, @@ 6250- 6265), a
court may but is not required to examine the disputed records in
camera. Gov. Code, @ 6259, provides  the court shall decide the
case after examining the record in camera if permitted by Evid.
Code, @ 915, subd. (b). However, the in camera hearing provisions
of @ 915, subd. (b), are permissive. Thus under @ 6259 in camera
inspection of the record in question is not required as a matter of
law, but is  trusted to the sound discretion of the trial court.
Register Div. of Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v County of Orange (1984,
4th Dist) 158 Cal App 3d 893, 205 Cal Rptr 92.
    Under Gov. Code, @ 6259, as amended in 1991, providing for
review by extraordinary writ of a trial court order which either
directs disclosure of a public record or refuses disclosure, the
trial court's orders are reviewable on  their merits; review is not
limited to whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction.  The
purpose of writ review is to speed appellate review, not to
preclude review on the merits. The appellate court conducts an
independent review of the trial court's ruling, with the factual
findings made by the trial  court being upheld if based on
substantial evidence.  Times Mirror Co. v Superior Court (1991) 53
Cal 3d 1325, 283 Cal Rptr 893, 813 P2d 240.
    Gov. Code, @ 6259, subd.  (c), which prohibits review by appeal
of cases arising under the California Public Records Act ( Gov.
Code, @ 6250  et seq.), conflicts with and is thus invalidated by
the express grant of appellate jurisdiction in Cal. Const., art.
VI, @ 11, providing " [C]ourts of appeal have  appellate
jurisdiction when superior courts have original jurisdiction and in
other cases prescribed by statute." That provision confers
appellate jurisdiction on the Courts of Appeal over every "cause"
as to which superior courts have original jurisdiction, and a
proceeding for disclosure of information under the Public Records
Act is the kind of case to which "cause" refers. Accordingly, a
petition for writ of review (certiorari), which is sanctioned by
the statute as the exclusive means of appellate review, does not
lie, and the Court of Appeal denied such a petition by the State
Board of Control seeking review by writ of review of an order
directing it to disclose records containing the details of
earthquake claim settlements under Gov. Code,  @@ 997-997.6.  State
Bd. of Control v Superior Court (1991, 3rd Dist) 228 Cal App 3d
1188, 279 Cal Rptr 413, review gr.
    Gov. Code, @ 6259, subd.  (c), which prohibits review by appeal
of cases arising under the California Public Records Act ( Gov.
Code, @ 6250  et seq.), conflicts with and is thus invalidated by
the express grant of appellate jurisdiction in Cal. Const., art.
VI, @ 11, providing " [C]ourts of appeal have  appellate
jurisdiction when superior courts have original jurisdiction and in
other cases prescribed by statute." That provision confers
appellate jurisdiction on the Courts of Appeal over every "cause"
as to which superior courts have original jurisdiction, and a
proceeding for disclosure of information under the Public Records
Act is the kind of case to which "cause" refers. Accordingly, a
petition for writ of review (certiorari), which is sanctioned by
the statute as the exclusive means of appellate review, does not
lie, and the Court of Appeal denied such a petition by the State
Board of Control seeking review by writ of review of an order
directing it to disclose records containing the details of
earthquake claim settlements under Gov. Code,  @@ 997-997.6.  State
Bd. of Control v Superior Court (1991, 3rd Dist) 228 Cal App 3d
1188, 279 Cal Rptr 413, review gr.
    In Gov. Code, @ 6259, subd. (d), providing the court "shall"
award costs and  attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff in
litigation filed pursuant to the section (Public Records Act), the
Legislature intended the subdivision to be mandatory.  Belth v
Garamendi (1991, 1st Dist) 232 Cal App 3d 896, 283 Cal Rptr  829.
  Although Gov. Code, @ 6259, subd. (c), precludes an appeal from
an order that directs the disclosure of public records or supports
the denial of a request for disclosure, the statute permits review
of trial court orders on their merits by  a writ of review. The
scope of review by a writ of review is equivalent with the scope of
review on appeal, and an appellate court will consider the merits
of a  trial court's order as if the case were on appeal.  State Bd.
of Equalization v  Superior Court (1992, 3rd Dist) 10 Cal App 4th
1177, 13 Cal Rptr 2d 342.

                        GOVERNMENT CODE
            TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
                 DIVISION 3. Executive Department
              PART 1. STATE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
                 CHAPTER 1. State Agencies
                    ARTICLE 9. Meetings

            Cal Gov Code prec @ 11120 (1993)

Preceding @ 11120.

HISTORY:
ARTICLE HISTORY:
     [Added by Stats 1967 ch 1656 @ 122.].
         Cal Gov Code prec @ 11120 (1993)

NOTES:
ARTICLE CROSS REFERENCES:
Cancer Advisory Council exempt from conducting meetings open to
public in accordance with this article: H & S C @ 1702. Exclusion
of meetings of board of directors of State Compensation Insurance
Fund from provisions of this article: Ins C @ 11770.5.
  Application of provisions of this article to meetings of Colorado
River Board of California: Wat C @ 12516.
    Required certificate, of Colorado River Board of California,
that meetings were in accordance with provisions of this article:
Wat C @ 12519.

ARTICLE COLLATERAL REFERENCES:
    Witkin & Epstein, Criminal Law (2d ed) @ 1231.
    Witkin Procedure (3d ed) Actions @ 731.
    Witkin Summary (9th ed) Constitutional Law @@ 584-587.
    Cal Jur 3d Public Housing @ 22, Public Utilities @ 23.

LAW REVIEW ARTICLES:
    Invalidation as a remedy for violation of open meeting
statutes: is the cure  worse than the disease?  20 USF LR 163.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS:
              Cal Gov Code prec @ 11120 (1993)

   Regents of the University of California are not subject to the
provisions of  Gov. Code, @@ 11120--11131.  64 Ops Atty Gen 875.
   Provisions of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act are directory,
not mandatory; resolution passed as agenda item which did not
comply with "specific agenda" requirements is not invalid.  67 Ops
Atty Gen 84.
  California Commission on the Status of Women may not elect
officers by secret ballot or mail ballot, because of violations of
Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act; furthermore, legislative members of
the Commission may not send proxies to vote  in their place when
they cannot attend meeting.  68 Ops Atty Gen 65.
    Meetings of task force comprised of private citizens appointed
by State Insurance Commissioner to render advice on public policy
issues, operating under direction and timetable of commissioner and
receiving its resources from Department of Insurance, are not
required to be open to members of public.  75 Ops Atty Gen 263.

ANNOTATIONS:
    Validity, construction, and application of statutes making
public proceedings open to the public.  38 ALR3d 1070.

                   ARTICLE NOTES OF DECISIONS

                        Cal Gov Code prec @ 11120 (1993)
   Only the meetings of those entities specified in Ed. Code, @
92030, come within the scope of the Bagley-Keen Open Meeting Act
(Gov.  Code, @@ 11120-11131) (requiring state body meetings to be
open). By omitting any reference to advisory bodies, or to bodies
that exercise authority delegated to  them by persons who control
the University of California, the Legislature has indicated that
the act's requirements are inapplicable to such bodies.  Tafoya v
Hastings College (1987, 1st Dist) 191 Cal App 3d 437, 236 Cal Rptr
395. In an action for injunctive and declaratory relief by students
of the state law college affiliated with the University of
California, against the law college, faculty members and others, in
which the students sought to require the law college's faculty to
comply with the Bagley-Keen Open Meeting Act (Gov. Code, @@
11120-11131) (requiring state body meetings to be open), the trial
court properly sustained defendants' demurrer to the complaint and
dismissed the action after the students waived their right to
amend. Faculty and board meetings of the law college are not
subject to the act. The Legislature intended the law college to
constitute a branch of the university, governed by the same laws.
No faculty of any campus of the university, including that of the
law college, is subject to the act.  Tafoya v Hastings College
(1987, 1st Dist) 191  Cal App 3d 437, 236 Cal Rptr 395.
    Both the Open Meeting Act (Gov. Code, @ 11120 et seq.) and the
Public Records Act ( Gov. Code, @ 6250  et seq.) accommodate the
protections of Rev. & Tax. Code, @ 11655 (requirement that State
Board of Equalization keep any submitted information and documents
relating to a taxpayer's business affairs secret). Business affairs
information and records under the private railroad car tax law
(Rev. & Tax. Code, @@ 11201 et seq.) are exempt from disclosure
under both acts. General American Transp. Corp. v State Bd. of
Equalization (1987, 1st Dist) 193  Cal App 3d 1175, 238 Cal Rptr
865.

                         GOVERNMENT CODE
TITLE 1. GENERAL                             DIVISION
7. Miscellaneous          CHAPTER 3.5. Inspection of Public Records
                Cal  Gov Code @ 6265  (1993)

@ 6265.  Status of records not changed by disclosure to district
attorney

   Disclosure of records to a district attorney under the
provisions of this chapter shall effect no change in the status of
the records under any other provision of law.
       Cal Gov Code @ 6265 (1993)