====== Request public records from a California state or local agency ====== **California · How do I request public records?** · state model checked by Claude · quality 0.99 //Generated by [[https://github.com/alibama/lexflow|lexflow]] from the state statutes (open-us-law, government publisher text) and checked by Claude: every quoted phrase was matched word for word against the statute text, and the process passed the BPMN/DMN schemas, bpmnlint and a Petri-net soundness check. Information, not legal advice.// **Governing law:** [[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=7922.535.|Cal. GOV § 7922.535]] — Section 7922.535 ===== Process map ===== Any person asks a California state or local agency for a copy of public records None of the four sections states what happens if the agency misses the 10-day determination deadline or the extended date; the Act's enforcement provisions (Cal. Gov. Code § 7923.000 et seq.) are not among the modelled sections, and nothing here makes silence a deemed denial. Both timers therefore carry consequence 'unstated' and end in their own deadline-missed end states. Extension (7922.535(b)): the notice must be sent by the head of the agency or a designee, must give the reasons and the date a determination is expected to be dispatched, and may not specify a date that would extend the time by more than 14 days. The text does not say the notice must be sent within the original 10 days, though an extension of a time limit implies it. The determine_extended timer is set to the outer limit, 24 days (10 + 14) from receipt of the request; the binding deadline is the earlier date stated in the notice, which the timer cannot carry. Because the timer is a boundary event on determine_extended, an engine starts it when that task starts (after the extension notice), so a strict implementation must offset it by the days already elapsed since receipt. Unusual circumstances count only to the extent reasonably necessary to process the particular request (7922.535(c)). The cyberattack ground does not excuse records held elsewhere or on paper and lasts only until access is regained (c)(5)(A)-(B); the emergency ground does not apply to records created during and related to the emergency (c)(6)(A). These limits are folded into the decision's input labels, not modelled as separate rules. The all-false rule giving no unusual circumstances is implied by the closed list in (c), not stated. The '10 days' and '14 days' are not stated to be business days and are modelled as calendar days. The written-denial rule (7922.540(a)) applies to a response to a written request; these sections do not say what form a denial of an oral request takes, or whether a request must be written at all. A request need only reasonably describe an identifiable record (7922.530(a)); these sections ask for no form, purpose or identification. A partial denial goes through deny_in_writing and then on to state_availability_date (join 'any'), so the written denial of the withheld part and the release of the rest are one path; a whole denial ends at request_denied. state_availability_date carries no condition: out of notify_determination it is the default branch, taken only when neither deny_in_writing (denied_in_whole_or_part) nor no_records_held (records_not_held) applies, i.e. on full disclosure; out of deny_in_writing it is the default when the denial is not whole. This keeps every split mutually exclusive, so a partial denial cannot skip the written denial that 7922.540(a) requires. The written denial must name each person responsible (7922.540(b)), which appears in the decision's output text rather than as a separate step. The agency carries the burden of justifying withholding under § 7922.000 (express exemption or a public-interest balance that clearly favours withholding); the sections do not say whether that justification must appear in the denial notice itself. Records 'exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law' (7922.530(a)) are not listed here; the exemptions themselves sit elsewhere in the Act. Fees (7922.530(a)) cover the direct costs of duplication or a statutory fee if one applies; no amounts, deposits or waivers are stated. An exact copy must be provided on request unless impracticable (provide_exact_copy, condition exact_copy_requested, a fact of the request); the sections do not say who decides impracticability or what is provided instead, so the impracticable case is left in the action text and make_available is the default. The requester's free on-premises copying right (7922.530(b)) arises when the requester inspects a record; the right to inspect itself is in another section not modelled here. The own_equipment_copying decision allows it unless copying would damage the record or give unauthorized access to agency systems ((b)(1)-(2)); the (b) requirement that the equipment not touch the record is in the allowing rule's quote, not a separate input. The agency may also impose reasonable limits to protect records, avoid undue burden, or preserve historic or high-value records (7922.530(c)); these limits are not modelled. Inspection with own equipment is modelled as an alternative to paying for copies. start submit_request determine determine_deadline determine_deadline_end determine_extended determine_extended_deadline determine_extended_deadline_end notify_determination deny_in_writing state_availability_date allow_own_equipment pay_fees copy_own_equipment make_available provide_exact_copy records_released request_denied no_records_held notify_determination_join state_availability_date_join records_released_join notify_determination_gw deny_in_writing_gw allow_own_equipment_gw pay_fees_gw assess_unusual extend_time assess_unusual_gw Cal. GOV § 7922.530(a): “upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person” upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person sf6 Cal. GOV § 7922.530(a): “a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records” a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records sf6 sf7 Cal. GOV § 7922.535(b): “In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this article and Article 1 (commencing with Section 7922.500) may be extended” In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this article and Article 1 (commencing with Section 7922.500) may be extended unusual_circumstances sf7 sf8 Cal. GOV § 7922.535(b): “setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched” setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched sf9 sf11 Cal. GOV § 7922.535(a): “determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency” determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency determination sf10 sf12 Cal. GOV § 7922.535(a): “within 10 days from receipt of the request” within 10 days from receipt of the request sf1 P10D Cal. GOV § 7922.535(a) [implied]: “within 10 days from receipt of the request” within 10 days from receipt of the request sf1 Cal. GOV § 7922.535(b): “the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched” the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched determination sf11 sf13 Cal. GOV § 7922.535(b): “The notice shall not specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days.” The notice shall not specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. sf2 P24D Cal. GOV § 7922.535(b) [implied]: “The notice shall not specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days.” The notice shall not specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. sf2 Cal. GOV § 7922.535(a): “shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor” shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor sf3 sf14 Cal. GOV § 7922.540(a): “A response to a written request for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing.” A response to a written request for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing. sf15 sf18 Cal. GOV § 7922.535(a): “the agency shall also state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available” the agency shall also state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available sf4 sf21 Cal. GOV § 7922.530(b): “unless the means of copy or reproduction would result in either of the following” unless the means of copy or reproduction would result in either of the following own_equipment_copying sf21 sf22 Cal. GOV § 7922.530(a): “upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable” upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable sf24 sf25 Cal. GOV § 7922.530(b): “A requester who inspects a disclosable record on the premises of the agency has the right to use the requester’s equipment on those premises, without being charged any fees or costs, to photograph or otherwise copy or reproduce the record” A requester who inspects a disclosable record on the premises of the agency has the right to use the requester’s equipment on those premises, without being charged any fees or costs, to photograph or otherwise copy or reproduce the record sf23 sf30 Cal. GOV § 7922.530(a): “shall make the records promptly available to any person” shall make the records promptly available to any person sf27 sf28 Cal. GOV § 7922.530(a): “Upon request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so.” Upon request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so. sf26 sf29 Cal. GOV § 7922.530(a): “shall make the records promptly available to any person” shall make the records promptly available to any person sf5 Cal. GOV § 7922.540(c): “An agency shall justify withholding any record by complying with Section 7922.000.” An agency shall justify withholding any record by complying with Section 7922.000. sf19 Cal. GOV § 7922.535(a): “determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency” determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency sf16 sf12 sf13 sf3 sf17 sf20 sf4 sf28 sf29 sf30 sf5 sf8 sf9 sf10 sf14 sf15 sf16 sf17 sf18 sf19 sf20 sf22 sf23 sf24 sf25 sf26 sf27 unusual_circumstances denied_in_whole_or_part records_not_held denied_in_whole own_equipment_copying exact_copy_requested ===== Steps and the words they come from ===== - **Request copies, reasonably describing the records** — Requester (any person) · //right// (§ 7922.530(a)) \\ “//a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records//” - **Decide whether unusual circumstances justify extension** — Head of the agency or a designee · //permission// (§ 7922.535(b)) \\ “//In unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this article and Article 1 (commencing with Section 7922.500) may be extended//” - **Send written extension notice with reasons** — Head of the agency or a designee · //permission// (§ 7922.535(b)) \\ “//setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched//” - **Determine whether records are disclosable** — State or local agency · within 10 days · //obligation// (§ 7922.535(a)) \\ “//determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency//” - **Determine by the date in notice** — State or local agency · within 24 days · //obligation// (§ 7922.535(b)) \\ “//the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched//” - **Promptly notify requester of determination and reasons** — State or local agency · //obligation// (§ 7922.535(a)) \\ “//shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor//” - **Issue written denial naming those responsible** — State or local agency · //obligation// (§ 7922.540(a)) \\ “//A response to a written request for inspection or copies of public records that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, shall be in writing.//” - **State estimated date and time of availability** — State or local agency · //obligation// (§ 7922.535(a)) \\ “//the agency shall also state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available//” - **Decide whether own-equipment copying is allowed** — State or local agency · //obligation// (§ 7922.530(b)) \\ “//unless the means of copy or reproduction would result in either of the following//” - **Pay direct duplication costs or statutory fee** — Requester (any person) · //obligation// (§ 7922.530(a)) \\ “//upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable//” - **Copy record on premises with own equipment** — Requester (any person) · //right// (§ 7922.530(b)) \\ “//A requester who inspects a disclosable record on the premises of the agency has the right to use the requester’s equipment on those premises, without being charged any fees or costs, to photograph or otherwise copy or reproduce the record//” - **Make copies promptly available** — State or local agency · //obligation// (§ 7922.530(a)) \\ “//shall make the records promptly available to any person//” - **Provide exact copy unless impracticable** — State or local agency · //obligation// (§ 7922.530(a)) \\ “//Upon request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so.//” ===== Do unusual circumstances allow the agency to extend the time limit? ===== Decision table (DMN), hit policy FIRST. ^ Records must be collected from separate field facilities ^ Voluminous separate records demanded in a single request ^ Consultation needed with another agency or among agency components ^ Data must be compiled or a program or report written to extract it ^ Cyberattack prevents access to servers holding electronic responsive records ^ Governor's state of emergency directly impairs timely response (not records about the emergency) ^ → Extension of up to 14 days available ^ Source ^ | true | - | - | - | - | - | true | § 7922.535(c)(1) | | - | true | - | - | - | - | true | § 7922.535(c)(2) | | - | - | true | - | - | - | true | § 7922.535(c)(3) | | - | - | - | true | - | - | true | § 7922.535(c)(4) | | - | - | - | - | true | - | true | § 7922.535(c)(5) | | - | - | - | - | - | true | true | § 7922.535(c)(6) | | false | false | false | false | false | false | false | § 7922.535(c) | ===== Does the request seek disclosable public records in the agency's possession? ===== Decision table (DMN), hit policy FIRST. ^ Agency possesses records the request seeks ^ Every requested record justifiably withheld under § 7922.000 ^ Some requested records justifiably withheld under § 7922.000 ^ → Determination notified to the requester ^ → Some records will be made available ^ → Written denial required ^ → Request denied in whole ^ → Agency holds no records the request seeks ^ Source ^ | false | - | - | No requested records in the agency's possession | false | false | false | true | § 7922.535(a) | | true | true | - | Denied in whole; written denial naming each person responsible | false | true | true | false | § 7922.540(b) | | true | false | true | Disclosable in part; written denial of the rest; estimated date and time stated | true | true | false | false | § 7922.000 | | true | false | false | Disclosable; estimated date and time stated | true | false | false | false | § 7922.535(a) | ===== May the requester copy the record on the premises with their own equipment, free of charge? ===== Decision table (DMN), hit policy FIRST. ^ Requester inspects a disclosable record on the agency's premises ^ The means of copying would damage the record ^ The means of copying would give unauthorized access to agency systems or secured networks ^ → Free copying with own equipment allowed ^ Source ^ | false | - | - | false | § 7922.530(b) | | true | true | - | false | § 7922.530(b)(1) | | true | - | true | false | § 7922.530(b)(2) | | true | false | false | true | § 7922.530(b) | ===== What the text leaves open ===== * None of the four sections states what happens if the agency misses the 10-day determination deadline or the extended date; the Act's enforcement provisions (Cal. Gov. Code § 7923.000 et seq.) are not among the modelled sections, and nothing here makes silence a deemed denial. Both timers therefore carry consequence 'unstated' and end in their own deadline-missed end states. * Extension (7922.535(b)): the notice must be sent by the head of the agency or a designee, must give the reasons and the date a determination is expected to be dispatched, and may not specify a date that would extend the time by more than 14 days. The text does not say the notice must be sent within the original 10 days, though an extension of a time limit implies it. The determine_extended timer is set to the outer limit, 24 days (10 + 14) from receipt of the request; the binding deadline is the earlier date stated in the notice, which the timer cannot carry. Because the timer is a boundary event on determine_extended, an engine starts it when that task starts (after the extension notice), so a strict implementation must offset it by the days already elapsed since receipt. * Unusual circumstances count only to the extent reasonably necessary to process the particular request (7922.535%%(c)%%). The cyberattack ground does not excuse records held elsewhere or on paper and lasts only until access is regained %%(c)%%(5)(A)-(B); the emergency ground does not apply to records created during and related to the emergency %%(c)%%(6)(A). These limits are folded into the decision's input labels, not modelled as separate rules. The all-false rule giving no unusual circumstances is implied by the closed list in %%(c)%%, not stated. * The '10 days' and '14 days' are not stated to be business days and are modelled as calendar days. * The written-denial rule (7922.540(a)) applies to a response to a written request; these sections do not say what form a denial of an oral request takes, or whether a request must be written at all. A request need only reasonably describe an identifiable record (7922.530(a)); these sections ask for no form, purpose or identification. * A partial denial goes through deny_in_writing and then on to state_availability_date (join 'any'), so the written denial of the withheld part and the release of the rest are one path; a whole denial ends at request_denied. state_availability_date carries no condition: out of notify_determination it is the default branch, taken only when neither deny_in_writing (denied_in_whole_or_part) nor no_records_held (records_not_held) applies, i.e. on full disclosure; out of deny_in_writing it is the default when the denial is not whole. This keeps every split mutually exclusive, so a partial denial cannot skip the written denial that 7922.540(a) requires. The written denial must name each person responsible (7922.540(b)), which appears in the decision's output text rather than as a separate step. The agency carries the burden of justifying withholding under § 7922.000 (express exemption or a public-interest balance that clearly favours withholding); the sections do not say whether that justification must appear in the denial notice itself. * Records 'exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law' (7922.530(a)) are not listed here; the exemptions themselves sit elsewhere in the Act. * Fees (7922.530(a)) cover the direct costs of duplication or a statutory fee if one applies; no amounts, deposits or waivers are stated. An exact copy must be provided on request unless impracticable (provide_exact_copy, condition exact_copy_requested, a fact of the request); the sections do not say who decides impracticability or what is provided instead, so the impracticable case is left in the action text and make_available is the default. The requester's free on-premises copying right (7922.530(b)) arises when the requester inspects a record; the right to inspect itself is in another section not modelled here. The own_equipment_copying decision allows it unless copying would damage the record or give unauthorized access to agency systems ((b)(1)-(2)); the (b) requirement that the equipment not touch the record is in the allowing rule's quote, not a separate input. The agency may also impose reasonable limits to protect records, avoid undue burden, or preserve historic or high-value records (7922.530%%(c)%%); these limits are not modelled. Inspection with own equipment is modelled as an alternative to paying for copies. ===== Court decisions citing this law ===== //Found with [[https://www.courtlistener.com|CourtListener]] (Free Law Project): opinions in the state's appellate courts whose text cites these sections. Listed for research; not every citing case construes the section.// * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10865193/voice-of-san-diego-v-san-diego-unified-school-dist/|Voice of San Diego v. San Diego Unified School Dist.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2026) — cites § 7922.530 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10865193/voice-of-san-diego-v-san-diego-unified-school-dist/|Voice of San Diego v. San Diego Unified School Dist.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2026) — cites § 7922.535 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10813777/city-of-fresno-v-superior-court/|City of Fresno v. Superior Court]] (California Court of Appeal, 2026) — cites § 7922.000 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10813777/city-of-fresno-v-superior-court/|City of Fresno v. Superior Court]] (California Court of Appeal, 2026) — cites § 7922.535 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10801733/bartholomew-v-parking-concepts-inc/|Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2026) — cites § 7922.000 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10784908/bartholomew-v-parking-concepts-inc/|Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2026) — cites § 7922.000 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10774947/city-of-gilroy-v-superior-court/|City of Gilroy v. Superior Court]] (California Supreme Court, 2026) — cites § 7922.000 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10774947/city-of-gilroy-v-superior-court/|City of Gilroy v. Superior Court]] (California Supreme Court, 2026) — cites § 7922.530 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10774947/city-of-gilroy-v-superior-court/|City of Gilroy v. Superior Court]] (California Supreme Court, 2026) — cites § 7922.535 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10618914/city-of-vallejo-v-super-ct/|City of Vallejo v. Super. Ct.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2025) — cites § 7922.000 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10617812/sacramento-television-stations-inc-v-super-ct/|Sacramento Television Stations Inc. v. Super. Ct.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2025) — cites § 7922.000 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10599994/sacramento-television-stations-inc-v-super-ct/|Sacramento Television Stations Inc. v. Super. Ct.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2025) — cites § 7922.000 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10382809/di-lauro-v-city-of-burbank/|Di Lauro v. City of Burbank]] (California Court of Appeal, 2025) — cites § 7922.000 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10382809/di-lauro-v-city-of-burbank/|Di Lauro v. City of Burbank]] (California Court of Appeal, 2025) — cites § 7922.535 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10382809/di-lauro-v-city-of-burbank/|Di Lauro v. City of Burbank]] (California Court of Appeal, 2025) — cites § 7922.540 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9502464/state-of-california-v-super-ct/|State of California v. Super. Ct.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2024) — cites § 7922.000 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9456324/first-amendment-coalition-v-super-ct/|First Amendment Coalition v. Super. Ct.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2023) — cites § 7922.000 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9455643/castanares-v-super-ct/|Castanares v. Super. Ct.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2023) — cites § 7922.000 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9455643/castanares-v-super-ct/|Castanares v. Super. Ct.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2023) — cites § 7922.535 * [[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/9431843/county-of-san-benito-v-super-ct/|County of San Benito v. Super. Ct.]] (California Court of Appeal, 2023) — cites § 7922.000 ===== Checks ===== * Quotes checked word for word: 36 (0 not exact) * BPMN / DMN schema errors: 0 / 0; bpmnlint errors: 0 * Petri nets sound: 1 of 1 * Sections used: 7922.530, 7922.535, 7922.540, 7922.000 ← [[lexflow:ca|California]] · [[lexflow:start|lexflow models]]