Question
I submitted a records request to a public school district. After agreeing to narrow it down to what should be a relatively simple search I have now been told it will take an estimated 12 weeks to produce the records.
My initial search of case law indicates that there is no hard and fast guideline for what is considered “prompt” under the statute; however, 12 weeks seems very excessive to me considering the small scope of the request. Also, this school district is implementing a one-year email retention policy, which I fear may be used to thwart my request; i.e., responsive records may be destroyed before the 12 weeks are up.
Any thoughts on how to pressure the district to provide the records sooner, short of filing a petition in court?
Answer
After you make a written request under the California Public Records Act (“PRA”) an agency must determine whether the requested records are disclosable within 10 days of your request (or 14 in certain circumstances), and “promptly notify” you, in writing, if it will make the records available, or specifically state the exemption it is claiming and how it applies to the requested records. Gov’t Code § 6253(c).
Unfortunately, after the agency informs the requester that it will make the records available, the PRA does not provide a specific timeline by which an agency must disclose requested documents, and “[t]he Act provides no remedy for failure to timely comply with a request for records.” Rogers v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. App. 4th 469, 483 (1993), as modified (Oct. 13, 1993) (emphasis added).
Additionally, timeliness of delivery appears to be a fact specific inquiry – in one case, Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified Sch. Dist., 202 Cal. App. 4th 1250, 1268 n.14 (2012), the court of appeal noted that it had “serious questions” about whether a delay of one month, following the school district’s determination that the records requested were subject to disclosure, was warranted. In contrast, the court in Rogers v. Superior Court determined that responsive records that were not given to the petitioner until three months after the original request did not violate the Act, as the records were promptly disclosed when they became available. 19 Cal. App. 4th 469, 483 (1993), as modified (Oct. 13, 1993).
In Motorola Commc’n & Elecs., Inc. v. Dep’t of Gen. Servs, the court found an initial production within two weeks of a request was timely. 55 Cal. App. 4th 1340, 1349–51 (1997). However, Government Code section 6253(d) requires, “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records.”
I suggest writing a follow-up letter, reminding the agency of its obligations under the PRA to provide you the estimated date and time when disclosable records will be made available and provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying such records. Should you be forced to resort to litigation in order to enforce your rights under the Act, a court should “award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to the
plaintiff should the plaintiff prevail in litigation filed pursuant to this section.” Gov’t Code § 6259(d).
Bryan Cave LLP is general counsel for the First Amendment Coalition and responds to FAC hotline inquiries. In responding to these inquiries, we can give general information regarding open government and speech issues but cannot provide specific legal advice or representation. No attorney-client relationship has been formed by way of this response.
Asked & Answered posts should not be relied on as legal advice, and FAC makes no guarantees about their completeness or accuracy. All posts carry a date of publication that readers should take note of in assessing their usefulness, given that laws and interpretations of them may change over time. Posts predating Jan. 1, 2023, that discuss the California Public Records Act may contain statute numbers no longer in use. Please see this page for a table showing how the California Public Records Act has been renumbered.