California Government Code 6254: Public Records Exemptions

California Government Code 6254 was the long list of exemptions to the California Public Records Act — the section that told state and local agencies which categories of records they could withhold from public disclosure. It was repealed effective January 1, 2023, when the Legislature recodified the entire CPRA into Government Code sections 7920.000 through 7931.000.¹ The exemptions themselves did not change. They just live at new addresses, scattered across sections 7923.600 to 7929.610.

What the 2023 Recodification Did and Did Not Change

The old CPRA occupied Government Code sections 6250 through 6270, and the exemptions were packed into more than two dozen subdivisions of section 6254. AB-473 reorganized everything into a new Division 10 beginning at section 7920.000.¹ The bill’s authors stated plainly that “Nothing in the CPRA Recodification Act of 2021 is intended to substantively change the law relating to inspection of public records.” All prior case law interpreting section 6254 subdivisions still applies to their renumbered counterparts.

Two practical consequences follow. If you are filing a records request or challenging a denial today, cite the current section numbers. If you are reading older court opinions, those opinions still reference 6254 subdivisions, and they remain good law. The exemption categories below use the old subdivision labels, because that is how most practitioners and most published decisions still describe them.

Law Enforcement and Investigatory Files (Former 6254(f))

This subdivision exempted records of complaints, investigations, intelligence information, and security procedures held by the Attorney General’s office, the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services, and any state or local police agency. It also covered investigatory and security files compiled by other agencies for law enforcement, corrections, or licensing purposes.²

The California Supreme Court in Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) held that records of an investigation are exempt even when enforcement proceedings have not ripened into something “concrete and definite.” Limiting the exemption to cases with a clear prospect of prosecution, the court reasoned, would expose the sensitive early stages of determining whether a crime occurred and who committed it.³ The exemption is broad, but not absolute. Basic information about arrests, crimes reported, and the identity of individuals involved in incidents must still be disclosed under other CPRA provisions.

Personnel, Medical, and Similar Files (Former 6254(c))

This exemption covered “personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The same language now sits in Government Code section 7927.700.² The operative word is “unwarranted.” Courts apply a balancing test weighing the employee’s privacy interest against the public’s interest in disclosure. Medical history, disciplinary counseling, and similar material are generally protected. Salary, job titles, and employment dates for public officials are generally disclosable, because the accountability interest outweighs the privacy intrusion.

Braun v. City of Taft (1984) established the case-by-case balancing approach, rejecting any blanket rule. Agencies sometimes stretch the exemption to cover entire personnel files when only portions contain genuinely private information. If you receive a denial on this ground, you can ask whether the agency considered redacting the private portions and releasing the rest.

Trade Secrets and Confidential Business Information (Former 6254(d) and (e))

Subdivision (d) shielded records related to financial institutions, including applications, examination reports, and confidential communications involving banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and insurance companies. Subdivision (e) covered geological data, plant production data, and market reports obtained in confidence.²

These exemptions work together with California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Under Civil Code section 3426.1, a trade secret is information — including formulas, patterns, programs, methods, or processes — that derives economic value from not being publicly known and that the owner takes reasonable steps to keep secret.⁴ Proprietary information submitted to an agency as part of a permit or regulatory filing does not become a public record just because the agency holds it. In Uribe v. Howie (1971), the Court of Appeal enjoined disclosure of detailed pesticide application records, recognizing the competitive harm that would come from revealing proprietary equipment modifications, chemical formulations, and dosage techniques developed over years.⁵

Preliminary Drafts and Deliberative Materials (Former 6254(a))

This exemption covered preliminary drafts, notes, and internal memoranda that an agency does not retain in the ordinary course of business, and only when the public interest in withholding “clearly outweighs” the public interest in disclosure.² Two conditions matter. The record must be a preliminary draft or internal communication, not a final policy document. And it must not be retained in the agency’s normal files; if the agency keeps it, the exemption weakens.

In Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991), the California Supreme Court allowed the Governor to withhold daily appointment calendars, acknowledging the tension between an informed electorate and the confidentiality officials need to exchange ideas candidly.⁶ The “clearly outweighs” standard places the burden squarely on the agency.

Other Specialized Exemptions

Section 6254 also contained a long list of narrower exemptions. Each carried over into the recodified CPRA under a new section in the 7923 to 7929 range.

Records related to pending litigation or claims involving the agency, protected until the matter is finally adjudicated or settled (former subdivision (b)).
Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data for licensing, employment, or academic tests, protected to preserve test integrity (former subdivision (g)).
Real estate appraisals and engineering estimates for property acquisition or construction contracts, confidential until the acquisition or contract is complete (former subdivision (h)).
Taxpayer information received in confidence by local agencies in connection with tax collection (former subdivision (i)).
Public library borrowing records identifying what patrons have checked out (former subdivision (j)).

The Catch-All Balancing Test

Even when no specific exemption fits, an agency can still withhold a record under what is often called the catch-all. Government Code section 7922.000, formerly section 6255, requires agencies to justify any withholding by showing either that a specific exemption applies or that “the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure.”⁷ A vague interest in confidentiality is not enough. The agency must identify a concrete harm that disclosure would cause.

ACLU of Northern California v. Superior Court (2011) illustrates how courts police that burden. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation tried to withhold the names of pharmaceutical companies from which it sought to buy drugs used in executions, invoking the deliberative process privilege and the catch-all. The Court of Appeal ordered disclosure, finding that the department’s confidentiality claims did not clearly outweigh the public’s interest in knowing how the state carries out capital punishment.⁸ California courts have repeatedly held that exemptions are to be construed narrowly and that when in doubt, the law favors disclosure.

If an Agency Relies on One of These Exemptions to Deny Your Request

An agency that withholds records must identify the specific exemption it is relying on. A blanket refusal without explanation does not satisfy the CPRA. Your first move is usually an informal appeal: contact the agency’s records custodian or legal counsel, explain why the exemption does not apply, and ask for reconsideration. This works more often than people expect, especially when the initial denial was overbroad and a narrower or redacted production would satisfy both sides.

If informal efforts fail, you can file suit asking a court to order disclosure. Under Government Code section 7923.115, a prevailing requester is entitled to court costs and reasonable attorney fees, paid by the agency.⁹ This fee-shifting rule exists to keep agencies from stonewalling requesters who cannot afford a lawyer. If a court finds your suit clearly frivolous, the agency can recover its fees from you, so bring an action only when you have a genuine basis for believing the records should be released.

1
California Legislative Information. Bill Text – AB-473 California Public Records Act
2
California Legislative Information. California Government Code 6254 (2021)
3
Justia. Haynie v. Superior Court (County of Los Angeles)
4
California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 3426.1
5
Justia. Uribe v. Howie
6
Justia. Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991)
7
California Legislative Information. California Government Code 7922.000
8
Justia. ACLU v. Superior Court
9
California Legislative Information. California Government Code 7923.115