Write a review of FAC to help us keep our Top Rated Nonprofit status!

Asked and Answered

Public Officials’ Personal Email

June 14, 2009

Question

Does a city council member’s use of his/her personal email account to discuss city business make that account subject to Public Records Act Requests?

If so, is there a threshold between a single or several incidental uses and the systematic use of the personal email for city business that would trigger the account’s exposure to such requests?

Answer

Under Public Records Act (“PRA”), public records (which include “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,” Govt. Code Section 6252(e)), are open to the public unless a specific provision of the PRA or other law exempts them from disclosure.  Although purely personal emails may be exempt under the PRA, email correspondence relating to the business of the city council — whether sent to a city council member’s work email address or personal email address — would likely be subject to disclosure under the PRA, unless, as stated above, a PRA exemption applies.  The exemption that might apply to exempt the emails might be the PRA’s “deliberative process privilege” (codified in Gov’t Code  6255).  The deliberative process privilege is designed to protect materials reflecting deliberative or decision-making processes.  Wilson v. Superior Court, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 537 (1996).  The city might argue that emails to and from the mayor regarding the proposed sale of the property to the city are instrumental to the city’s decision-making process in determining whether to purchase the property and, therefore, are exempt from disclosure.  Note, however, where an agency invokes the deliberative process privilege, courts have held that the key question is whether disclosure of the materials would expose the agency’s decision-making process in such a way as to discourage candid discussion within the agency and thereby undermine the agency’s ability to do its job.  Wilson, 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 537.  It is important to note, also, that the deliberative process privilege is intended to protect only documents reflecting a deliberative or policy-making process.  Rogers v. Superior Court, 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412 (1993).  Finally, in order to invoke the deliberate process privilege, an agency must be able to justify its withholding by demonstrating that the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.  Govt. Code s. 6255(a).

I would suggest that you submit a PRA request for the records you seek.  As you know, the PRA requires agencies to provide you with the documents requested, or notify you that your request has been denied, within 10 days.  (Gov’t Code § 6253).  If the written request is denied, the agency is obligated to back its denial by citing an exemption in the PRA or other state or federal law allowing it to withhold the records you seek.  (Gov’t code § 6255).  A sample PRA request letter can be found on the CFAC website at the following link: https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/cpra-primer/sample-cpra-request-letter/

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.