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)