Skip to content
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore logo

California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog

Useful information for navigating legal challenges

Menu

HomeAboutMeet the TeamServicesResourcesContactSubscribe

Texts and E-mails on Personal Devices – Are They “Public Records”?

By David Urban on October 14, 2014
Posted in Privacy, Public Sector

Personal SmartphonePublic officials may sometimes use personal devices such as smartphones and personal e-mail or other accounts to communicate concerning their agency’s business.  Are these e-mails, texts, or other communications “public records” that must be disclosed in response to a demand under the California Public Records Act?  The California Supreme Court will soon decide.

The Court of Appeal in City of San Jose v. Superior Court held on March 27, 2014 that communications between public officials using exclusively private smartphones and e-mail accounts did not have to be disclosed under the Public Records Act.  On June 25, 2014, however, the California Supreme Court granted review.  Until that Court decides the case, the question will remain an open one.

Public records laws like the California Public Records Act provide for transparency in government decision making.  In enacting the Public Records Act, the California Legislature declared that “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”  (Cal. Gov. Code section 6250.)   The California Supreme Court has previously explained: “Openness in government is essential to the functioning of a democracy.”  The California Public Records Act effectuates these policies by providing that “public records” are available to anyone upon request.  The Act defines public records as “any writing[s] 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.”  (Id., section 6252(e).)  The procedural requirements of the Act are fairly straightforward.  When a member of the public requests records, the agency must respond within a short time, usually 10 days, advising the requestor whether the agency will produce the document.  It must then make the records available for inspection, and under certain circumstances provide exact copies of the records.  (Records need not be produced, however, if they come under certain statutory exemptions, for example if they are documents regarding pending litigation, documents that are attorney-client privilege or subject to other privileges, specified peace officer records, or certain personnel records.)

The City of San Jose case arose from the following facts.  In June 2009, a man named Ted Smith submitted a request to the City, seeking 32 categories of public records relating to redevelopment of San Jose’s downtown area.  The City complied with most of the requests, but declined in part to produce in response to requests for “[a]ny and all voicemails, emails or text messages sent or received on private electronic devices used by Mayor Chuck Reed or members of the City Council, or their staff, regarding any matters concerning the City of San Jose, including any matters concerning [certain persons] or anyone associated with Urban Markets LLC or San Pedro Square Properties.”   The City allowed inspection of responsive non-exempt records that were sent from or received on private electronic devices of the individuals using City accounts.  But it would not make available records from those individuals’ private electronic devices that used the individual’s private accounts.  An example of a record not produced would be a message sent from a private Gmail account using the person’s own personal electronic device.  The City reasoned that these were not “public records,” even if they did relate to the City’s business as specified in the requests.

Smith brought an action for declaratory relief challenging the City’s refusal to produce the records.  The Trial Court found in favor of Smith, holding that that “there is nothing in the [Public Records Act] that explicitly excludes individual officials from the definition of ‘public agency,’” and that a city is an “artificial person” that can “only act through its officers and employees.”  The Trial Court reasoned that, accordingly, a record that is “prepared, owned, used, or retained” by an official is “prepared, owned, used, or retained” by the City.  The Trial Court explained that a contrary ruling, which treated these records as outside the scope of the Act, would allow a public agency to “shield information from public disclosure simply by storing it on equipment it does not technically own.”

The Court of Appeal on March 27, 2014, reversed, holding that the records in question fell outside the scope of the Act.  The Court started with the Act’s plain language.  It reiterated that, in Government Code section 6252(e), the Act defines “public records” as those “prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.”  (Emphasis added.)  The Court reasoned that the term “local agency” is not synonymous with the individual officials or employees of that agency, so that the plain language of the Act did not encompass their strictly personal records and communications to which the City has no access.  The Court reasoned: “Had the Legislature intended to encompass such individuals within the scope of ‘public records,’ it could easily have done so.”  The Court summarized:

We . . . cannot agree with Smith that individual city council members and their staff must be considered equivalent to the City for purposes of providing public access to their writings on public business.  Because it is the agency—here, the City—that must prepare, own, use, or retain the writing in order for it to be a public record, those writings that are not accessible by the City cannot be said to fall within the statutory definition.  The City cannot, for example, “use” or “retain” a text message sent from a council member’s smartphone that is not linked to a City server or City account.  Thus, relying on the plain meaning of the language used in section 6252, subdivisions (a) and (e), we believe that the [Public Records Act] does not extend its disclosure mandate to writings of individual city officials and employees sent or received on their private devices and accounts.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged the argument made by Smith and on which the Trial Court relied: that accepting the City’s interpretation of the Act meant that officials could theoretically try to circumvent the Act by relaying some agency-related communications through personal devices using personal accounts.  The Court of Appeal concluded, however, that this concern was for the Legislature to address, by amending the statute.  It was not the Court’s role to re-write the statute to address the concern.

On June 25, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted review of the case.  Its order granting review supersedes the Court of Appeal’s decision, so that the decision does not serve as precedent to other courts.

Briefing in the California Supreme Court will start November 2014.  The Court can sometimes take a number of months to set the case for oral argument, but it will likely do so at some point in 2015.  After argument, the Court has 90 days to issue a decision.

Our firm has posted previously on the Court of Appeal decision from earlier this year, and provided a number of thoughts on the decision.  We pointed out as well that it was possible the California Supreme Court would take an interest in the case.

We will continue to report on developments in the San Jose case.

Tags: "Public Records Act", City of San Jose v. Superior Court, personal email, Public Records, Smartphones
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of David Urban David Urban

David Urban represents organizations, including public and private educators and public agencies, in all aspects of labor and employment law.  He has successfully defended employers in cases involving alleged discrimination and retaliation, disability accommodation, privacy, trade secrets, First Amendment, and alleged violation of…

David Urban represents organizations, including public and private educators and public agencies, in all aspects of labor and employment law.  He has successfully defended employers in cases involving alleged discrimination and retaliation, disability accommodation, privacy, trade secrets, First Amendment, and alleged violation of wage and hour laws, including meal and rest break laws.

Read more about David Urban
Show more Show less
Related Posts
hiring
Trouble-Shooting the Hiring Process for a Public Agency
August 3, 2021
Briefing Covid Tips Header
COVID Briefing: Legal Issues with Taking Employee Temperatures
April 24, 2020
constitution_against_flag
Origins and Applications of the Home Rule Doctrine
November 6, 2018

About LCW

Liebert Cassidy Whitmore is a full service employment and labor relations law firm providing expert consultation, representation, litigation, negotiation and investigation services to public agency management…

Read More....

Stay Connected

View Our LinkedIn Profile Subscribe to this blog via RSS Follow Us on Twitter

Archives

Topics

Related Articles

  • Tips from the Table: How to Respond to Union Requests for Information During Bargaining
  • Court of Appeal finds that the Statute of Limitations is 1 year from the discovery of each act of misconduct from an Employee
  • 2023 Legislative Session: Employment Bills to Watch
  • Public Education Agencies, Take Heed!  If You’re Not Paying Attention to SB 278 and AB 1667, You Could Be On the Hook for Repaying CalPERS or CalSTRS A Lot of Money
  • Public Safety Video Briefing: Thinking About Body Worn Cameras- February 2023

Blog Authors Show/Hide

  • Larissa Alvarez
  • Elizabeth Arce
  • Megan Atkinson
  • Steven M. Berliner
  • Richard Bolanos
  • Peter J. Brown
  • Dana Burch
  • Tony Carvalho
  • Melanie Chaney
  • Lisa S. Charbonneau
  • Kevin Chicas
  • Heather DeBlanc
  • Jenny Denny
  • Brian Dierze
  • Jenny-Anne S. Flores
  • Chris Frederick
  • Jeffrey C. Freedman
  • Adrianna Guzman
  • Troy Heisman
  • Leighton Henderson
  • Jaja Hsu
  • Katie Huber
  • Jack Hughes
  • Nathan T. Jackson
  • Morin Jacob
  • Che Johnson
  • Morgan Johnson
  • Alison Kalinski
  • Gabriella Kamran
  • Meredith Karasch
  • Paul D. Knothe
  • Erin Kunze
  • Megan Lewis
  • Stephanie Lowe
  • Savana Manglona
  • Mark Meyerhoff
  • Pilar Morin
  • Eileen O'Hare-Anderson
  • James Oldendorph
  • Brett A. Overby
  • Jennifer Palagi
  • Jennifer Puza
  • Lars T. Reed
  • Nick Rescigno
  • Jennifer Rosner
  • Daniel Seitz
  • Alexandra Seymour
  • Geoffrey Sheldon
  • Alysha Stein-Manes
  • Cara Strike
  • Ashley Sykora
  • Emanuela Tala
  • Madison Tanner
  • J. Scott Tiedemann
  • Kelly Tuffo
  • La Rita Turner
  • David Urban
  • Stefanie K. Vaudreuil
  • Stacy Velloff
  • Alexander Volberding
  • Brian Walter
  • Alex Wong
  • Oliver Yee
  • Joung Yim
  • Danny Y. Yoo
  • Michael Youril

Latest Tweets

Tweets by @lcwlegal
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore logo

California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog

Los Angeles
6033 West Century Blvd
5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Phone: 310.981.2000
San Francisco
135 Main Street
7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Phone: 415.512.3000
Fresno
5250 N. Palm Avenue
Suite 310
Fresno, CA 93704
Phone: 559.256.7800
San Diego
550 West C Street
Suite 620
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619.481.5900
Sacramento
400 Capitol Mall
Suite 1260
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916.584.7000
View Our LinkedIn Profile Subscribe to this blog via RSS Follow Us on Twitter
Privacy PolicyTerms of Use
Copyright © 2023, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo