Governments May Now Take ‘Months or Years’ to Fill Public Records Requests
Recently, several local government agencies heard something that got them excited.
They heard Voice of San Diego had lost a yearslong public records lawsuit against San Diego Unified School District. And not only had Voice lost, but the state Court of Appeals wrote something that these agencies believed would favor them in public records battles going forward.
Records of state are vital to reporting. Whether it is those obtained by public records request or those passed along in a dark alley, government documents have led to some of the most earth-shaking stories that have been published. From Voice’s SANDAG investigation to its teacher misconduct series and the infamous vaccine exemption doctor, Voice’s most powerful stories almost always rely on documents.
At issue in the case: The California Constitution requires agencies to produce public records “promptly.” But what does that mean? The appeals court’s written ruling said that no timer could be placed on the definition of promptness; it rejected Voice’s argument that it should mean “days and weeks” as opposed to “months and years.” What is prompt, the court found, depends on the nature of the request and “the circumstances of each case.”
The court offered an inconclusive list of factors that might apply, including the difficulty and breadth of the request, the size and resources of an agency, as well as the number of requests it receives.
Government agencies liked the sound of that. Two of them — the county of San Diego, with which Voice has had several public records battles, and a law firm that represents other governments — wrote into the Court of Appeal to ask for the opinion to be published. That would make it a legal precedent that future trial courts are required to follow.
In May, the court obliged. Its ruling is now the law of the land — though Voice has asked the Supreme Court to depublish the opinion. On the one hand, the ruling gives agencies an official menu of reasons they might use to justify the production of records taking months or years. On the other, it also gives records requesters a framework to prove that agencies aren’t following the promptness mandate.
“I don’t love this decision, but I also don’t think the sky is falling,” said David Loy, the legal director of the First Amendment Coalition. Loy said agencies will use the opinion to attempt to stretch out the time it takes to fulfill public records requests, but he also said “the court was very clear that it is not a blank check for agencies to say, ‘Go away.'”
Written by Will Huntsberry, Assistant Editor | August 24, 2026 | Voice of San Diego
Comments