BERGMAN DACEY GOLDSMITH SERVICE LOYALTY SOLUTIONS NEW CASE UPDATE
City of San Jose v. Superior Court, 2014 Cal.App. LEXIS 293
California Court of Appeal limits the scope of the California public records act
On March 27, 2014, in City of San Jose v. Superior Court, the Court of Appeal held that the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) does not require the disclosure of documents sent or received by public officials and employees on their private electronic devices using their private accounts. The Court of Appeal held that such communications are not “public records” within the meaning of the CPRA.
This decision provides much needed guidance on the scope of CPRA requirements in today’s digital age. The decision also provides much needed relief to public entities who have limited resources to respond to numerous burdensome CPRA requests.
It is possible that the decision may be appealed to the California Supreme Court. Further, the Legislature may amend the CPRA to require the disclosure of messages on the private electronic devices of public officers and employees, as such this is an issue that bears watching.
Bergman Dacey Goldsmith has represented public entities for over three decades, and has significant experience in advising public entities on CPRA issues, and litigating CPRA actions in Court. Should you like more information on how your entity can adjust its CPRA procedures in light of the City of San Jose v. Superior Court decision, please contact Brian J. Bergman at (310)-470-6110 or bbergman@bdgfirm.com.
Property Reserve Inc. v. Superior Court, 2014 Cal.App. LEXIS 237
California Court of Appeal Declares California Statutes Allowing for Pre-Condemnation environmental testing of property are unconstitutional
A California Court of Appeal recently ruled in Property Reserve Inc. v. Superior Court, 2014 Cal. App. LEXIS 237 that the California eminent domain law allowing for pre-condemnation entry for testing, as embodied in California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) § 1245.010, et seq. is unconstitutional because it fails to provide landowners with certain procedural protections embodied in the California Constitution. CCP § 1245.010 states that “Subject to requirements of this article, any person authorized to acquire property for a particular use by eminent domain may enter upon property to make photographs, studies, surveys, examinations, tests, soundings, borings, samplings, or appraisals or to engage in similar activities reasonably related to acquisition or use of the property for that use.” The entry and testing scheme allowed by CCP § 1245.010 was frequently used by public entities to determine whether targeted properties were suitable to meet the public project needs.
The Court’s ruling in Property Reserve makes clear that most environmental testing will be considered a taking that will require, at a minimum, the filing of an eminent domain complaint prior to the public entity being allowed to conduct the testing. This ruling will significantly hamper a public entity’s ability to evaluate potential acquisition sites, and may hinder the ability of public entities to approve Resolutions of Necessity to take a property by eminent domain.
Should you like more information on how your entity can adjust its procedures in light of the Property Reserve decision, please contact Brian J. Bergman at (310)-470-6110 or bbergman@bdgfirm.com.
| Los Angeles County Offices10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900Los Angeles, California 90024(310) 470-6110(310) 474-0931 Faxwww.bdgfirm.com | Orange County Offices17762 Cowan, Suite 200Irvine, CA 92614-6097(949) 494-1393(949) 494-8963 Faxwww.bdgfirm.com |
The article is available here.