This article was originally published in Law360 on March 11, 2026 — shared with permission

On Jan. 15, the California Supreme Court clarified in City of Gilroy v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County the relief available under, and the duties imposed by, the California Public Records Act.

The court ruled that declaratory relief may still be available under the CPRA, even when a public agency has already disclosed all nonexempt, responsive records in its possession, where a requester challenges a recurring policy or practice that is likely to affect future compliance.

The court further held that the CPRA does not implicitly require public agencies to preserve records once a request is made or an exemption is asserted.

For practitioners, City of Gilroy has practical and strategic implications. Public entity counsel should expect increased scrutiny of CPRA response practices, particularly standardized approaches to searches or exemptions that could be characterized as systemic. Producing records after litigation has commenced may not end the case if the requester plausibly alleges an ongoing policy or practice.

For attorneys representing requesters, the decision confirms that CPRA actions may retain value even after disclosure, especially given the availability of mandatory attorney fees to prevailing requesters under Section 7923.115 of the California Government Code.

At the same time, the ruling underscores that attorneys cannot rely on the CPRA as a substitute for record retention laws, and must conduct fact-specific analyses to identify applicable preservation obligations outside the statute.

A Quick Look at the CPRA

California enacted the CPRA in 1968 to recognize the “fundamental and necessary right” of the public to access government records. The CPRA allows the public to submit requests for copies of public records, commonly referred to as CPRA requests.[1]

Under the CPRA, all public records are subject to disclosure unless an exemption applies. If a public agency asserts an exemption, the requester may challenge the agency’s action and seek disclosure by filing an action for injunctive or declaratory relief. Generally speaking, actions for injunctive and declaratory relief are limited to prospective relief and are not predicated on past conduct.

Background

The City of Gilroy case arose from CPRA requests submitted to the City of Gilroy by the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley seeking the Gilroy Police Department’s body camera footage related to encampment sweeps dating back several years.

After initially withholding records based on the CPRA’s exemption for law enforcement records, the city later produced certain body camera footage and argued that the CPRA action was moot because no other responsive footage existed, as any earlier footage was destroyed pursuant to the city’s one-year record retention policy.

The Santa Clara County Superior Court granted partial declaratory relief, ruling that the city violated the CPRA by conducting an inadequate search for records, asserting a blanket exemption and failing to provide a timely response to the records request.

However, the court found that the city’s failure to preserve records upon receipt of the CPRA requests did not violate the CPRA because the CPRA does not impose a record retention requirement.

Both parties appealed the ruling.

On appeal, the city argued that declaratory relief was improper because all responsive nonexempt records in its possession had already been produced. The Sixth Appellate District agreed, concluding that declaratory relief was not available because the matter was moot.

The Law Foundation appealed the trial court’s determination that the CPRA does not impose a record retention requirement, arguing that public entities should be required to retain responsive records for the three-year statute of limitations period to bring a CPRA claim to prevent their destruction before a claim is made.

The appeals court disagreed, noting that nothing in the language of the CPRA imposes a record retention requirement.

The California Supreme Court granted review on both issues.

Broader Scope of Declaratory Relief

The California Supreme Court first addressed whether declaratory relief under the CPRA is categorically unavailable once an agency has produced all responsive, nonexempt records.

The court rejected that narrow interpretation. Section 7923.000 of the California Government Code expressly authorizes actions for injunctive or declaratory relief “to enforce [a] person’s right … to inspect or receive … public records.” The court emphasized that enforcement is not limited to compelling production of documents in a particular case. Declaratory relief may serve a broader purpose by clarifying rights and obligations, resolving ongoing disputes over CPRA compliance and guiding future conduct.

“At a minimum,” the court held, “declaratory relief is available … where the declaration would resolve an ongoing dispute … in a manner” likely to affect future public records requests or agency practices. An agency’s production of documents, particularly after litigation has commenced, does not necessarily moot claims challenging systematic or recurring practices that allegedly violate the CPRA.

Applying that standard, the court concluded that the trial court’s declarations that the city violated the CPRA by inadequately searching for records and by asserting a blanket exemption to body camera footage were appropriate because the city’s stated practice or policy made these issues reasonably likely to recur. Declaratory relief in that context served

the CPRA’s core purpose of increasing transparency by clarifying how agencies must respond to future requests.

Importantly, while the court did expand the availability of declaratory relief in CPRA actions, it stopped short of allowing declaratory relief in every case where a public agency is found to have violated the CPRA. This is most evident in the court’s discussion of the city’s untimely response to one of the Law Foundation’s CPRA requests.

While the majority declined to consider whether the untimely response alone would be sufficient to obtain declaratory relief, Justice Joshua Groban, joined by Justices Carol Corrigan and Leondra Kruger, more firmly emphasized the forward-looking nature of declaratory relief.

Justice Groban clarified that it is not an appropriate remedy where a party seeks only a declaration that a public agency’s past conduct violated the law. There must be some risk of future violation evidenced by a policy or repeated patterns of conduct for declaratory relief to be proper.

As a result, a single instance of a public agency missing its deadline to respond to a CPRA request would likely be insufficient to grant declaratory relief.

No Duty to Preserve Records

The court next addressed whether the CPRA implicitly requires agencies to preserve records for three years once an exemption is asserted. The court upheld the finding that the CPRA does not impose a record retention requirement.

The court reasoned that the CPRA details disclosure procedures and exemptions, yet is entirely silent on retention. The court viewed this silence as significant, particularly in light of legislative history expressly stating that the CPRA was not intended to affect existing laws governing destruction or retention of public records.

The California Legislature has enacted retention requirements elsewhere in the government code and penal code, including specific rules governing body camera footage. The absence of a comparable provision in the CPRA, the court reasoned, reflects a deliberate legislative choice.

The court also rejected the argument that a preservation duty should be inferred from the CPRA’s judicial review provisions. While courts may examine records in camera during litigation, that fact alone does not justify creating a sweeping preservation requirement covering potentially vast categories of records.

Such an obligation, the court warned, would effectively transform the CPRA into a retention statute — an outcome unsupported by text, legislative history or policy.

Concerns about spoliation, the court observed, are addressed through other doctrines and statutes, including litigation holds when litigation is reasonably foreseeable and sanctions for willful destruction of evidence. The CPRA itself, however, does not require agencies to suspend routine retention schedules simply because a records request has been made or an exemption asserted.

Practical Impact of the Decision

The California Supreme Court’s decision in City of Gilroy v. Superior Court has important implications for both public entities and legal practitioners.

The court made clear that a public agency cannot assume that producing all responsive, nonexempt records will moot a CPRA action. Declaratory relief remains available where a requester challenges a recurring policy or practice likely to affect future CPRA compliance.

In doing so, the court confirmed that CPRA enforcement actions are not limited to compelling disclosure in a single dispute, but may also serve a prospective, clarifying function.

At the same time, the court emphasized limits on this remedy, explaining that declaratory relief must be forward-looking and is not appropriate where a requester seeks only a declaration that a public agency’s past conduct violated the law, absent a risk of recurrence.

As a practical matter, because public agencies could face continued litigation exposure even after full production where their response practices are alleged to be systemic, they should carefully review their internal CPRA policies and search and response protocols — particularly any practices that suggest blanket exemptions or standardized refusals for certain categories of records — to ensure they align with statutory transparency obligations.

At the same time, the court reaffirmed that the CPRA does not implicitly impose an independent duty to preserve records once a request is made or an exemption asserted. However, public entities remain bound by other retention statutes, regulations and their own adopted policies. Agencies are not free to destroy records indiscriminately, especially where litigation is reasonably anticipated and preservation duties may arise from other legal sources.

For legal practitioners, City of Gilroy confirms that CPRA litigation retains value even after post suit disclosure, provided the case challenges recurring practices. This expands the strategic significance of CPRA actions in both litigation and transactional contexts.

Because a prevailing requester is entitled to mandatory attorney’s fees under Section 7923.115, the survival of declaratory relief claims postproduction materially increases financial exposure for public agencies and provides corresponding leverage for requesters’ counsel.

At the same time, the decision reinforces that counsel cannot rely on public records disclosure statutes to enforce record retention obligations. Careful, fact-specific due diligence remains essential to identify applicable retention rules and to assess whether preservation obligations arise from sources beyond the public records statute itself.

Attorneys advising public entity clients should emphasize that City of Gilroy preserves existing retention frameworks, but also that agencies should integrate CPRA compliance into broader litigation risk and records management strategies.

City of Gilroy confirms that CPRA compliance is not a box-checking exercise, that declaratory relief can shape future conduct, and that record retention remains a separate and essential legal inquiry. For public agencies and legal practitioners alike, the decision demands greater foresight, precision and strategic planning in public records practice.

---

[1] In California, these requests are more often referred to as “PRA requests.”