The intersection of California's Public Records Act (“PRA”)and record-retention statutes is generating significant legal developments. On January 15, 2026, the California Supreme Court decided City of Gilroy v. Superior Court, Case No. S282937. The case disposed of arguments that the PRA itself imposes a duty on cities to retain records subject to disclosure. According to the Supreme Court, any such duties arise only from independent record retention statutes or from a litigant’s obligation to retain documents that may be sought in discovery. In Los Angeles Times v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 25STCP01139, a case with potentially far-reaching implications for public agencies across the state, the court must now grapple with just what must be retained and what steps cities must take before discarding city workers’ electronic communications. BKLW partner Reuben Camper Cahn appeared before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen Goorvitch on January 23, 2026, arguing on behalf of the City in this closely watched litigation.

The case arises from a PRA request seeking Mayor Karen Bass's text messages from January 2025, during the City's response to the Pacific Palisades wildfires. Reporters were informed that no responsive texts existed because the Mayor's phone was configured to automatically delete messages after 30 days. The Times sued, initially seeking a judicial order that would have required the City to retain every employee text message that might relate to public’s business—including messages on personal devices—for at least two years.

In August 2025, anticipating the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Gilroy, the court sustained the City's demurrer to these broader claims, agreeing with BKLW's argument that such a sweeping retention requirement was unsupported by law and practically untenable. At the most recent January hearing, the Court trimmed the petition, allowing petitioners to go forward only with their challenge to the City’s failure to bar its employees from enabling auto-delete features—and possibly only on City-owned devices. Still unanswered is whether a court can impose an obligation on the City to review every text message its employees send or receive.

Why This Case Matters

This litigation sits at the heart of an unresolved tension in California law. The PRA guarantees access to records but does not impose any duty to retain them. Record-retention statutes, meanwhile, define “public records” more narrowly, including only records made or kept for the purpose of preserving informational content. Very few, if any, text messages will fit within this definition, and the burden of reviewing every employee’s texts to find those few would be substantial. As the court observed, the City is asserting its permissible discretion in implementing these retention obligations, not advancing an unreasonable position.

The court's ultimate resolution may influence how public agencies statewide approach electronic communications in an era dominated by informal, rapid messaging. BKLW is proud to represent the City of Los Angeles in this important matter as it continues to develop.