California Supreme Court Opinion, Supreme Court Case S218066, Conclusion: ‘Consistent with the Legislature‟s purpose in enacting CPRA, and our constitutional mandate to interpret the Act broadly in favor of public access (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(2)), we hold that a city employee's writings about public business are not excluded from CPRA simply because they have been sent, received, or stored in a personal account.’

ABSTRACT: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, CITY OF SAN JOSE et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent (S218066), an unanimous seven-member court, including Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan, who wrote the opinion, Chief Justice Tani Gorre Cantil-Sakauye, Associate Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, Associate Justice Ming W. Chin, Associate Justice Goodwin H. Liu, Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and Associate Justice Leondra R. Kruger reversed the judgment, and “the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” The Issues: Petition for review after the Court of Appeal granted a petition for peremptory writ of mandate. This case presents the following issue: Are written communications pertaining to city business, including email and text messages, which (a) are sent or received by public officials and employees on their private electronic devices using their private accounts, (b) are not stored on city servers, and (c) are not directly accessible by the city, "public records" within the meaning of the California Public Records Act? In writing the opinion, Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote “Conclusion Consistent with the Legislature‟s purpose in enacting CPRA, and our constitutional mandate to interpret the Act broadly in favor of public access (Cal. Const., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(2)), we hold that a city employee‟s writings about public business are not excluded from CPRA simply because they have been sent, received, or stored in a personal account.” (March 2, 2017) The Supreme Court Opinion for Supreme Court Case S218066 document copy is embedded. Importantly, “The City’s interpretation would allow evasion of CPRA simply by the use of a personal account. We are aware of no California law requiring that public officials or employees use only government accounts to conduct public business. If communications sent through personal accounts were categorically excluded from CPRA, government officials could hide their most sensitive, and potentially damning, discussions in such accounts. The City’s interpretation “would not only put an increasing amount of information beyond the public’s grasp but also encourage government officials to conduct the public’s business in private.””

s 218066 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY OF SAN JOSE et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, Respondent

S218066

Ct.App. 6 H039498

Santa Clara County

Super. Ct. No. 109CV15042

CORRIGAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.

WERDEGAR, J.

CHIN, J.

LIU, J.

CUÉLLAR, J.

KRUGER, J.

REFERENCES:
Calif. High Court Extends Public Records Law to Personal Devices
MARIA DINZEO March 2, 2017 Courthouse News Service

Case Summary