California Government Code 6254: Exemptions and 2023 Renumbering

California Government Code section 6254 was the long list of exemptions to the California Public Records Act, naming more than two dozen categories of records that state and local agencies could withhold. The section was repealed effective January 1, 2023, when the Legislature recodified the entire CPRA into Government Code sections 7920.000 through 7931.000.¹ The exemptions themselves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 were moved, renumbered, and reorganized into the 7923.600 through 7929.610 range, and every prior court decision interpreting section 6254 still applies to the new sections.

Why the Section Number Changed in 2023

The old CPRA lived at Government Code sections 6250 through 6270. Decades of amendments had turned section 6254 into a dense stack of lettered subdivisions, and AB-473 reorganized the whole scheme into a new Division 10 beginning at section 7920.000.¹ The Legislature was explicit that the recodification was nonsubstantive: “Nothing in the CPRA Recodification Act of 2021 is intended to substantively change the law relating to inspection of public records.”

For anyone working with these records today, that means two things. If you are filing a request or a denial letter, cite the current sections. If you are reading case law, expect it to reference the old section 6254 and its lettered subdivisions, and treat those citations as good law applied to the renumbered provisions. The categories below use the old subdivision labels because that is still how most practitioners and most opinions refer to them.

Law Enforcement Investigations — Former Subdivision (f)

Former section 6254(f) exempted complaints, investigations, intelligence information, and security procedures held by the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services, and any state or local police agency. It also reached investigatory and security files that other agencies compiled for law enforcement, correctional, or licensing purposes.²

This is the most heavily litigated of the CPRA exemptions. In Haynie v. Superior Court (2001), the California Supreme Court held that investigation records are exempt even when enforcement proceedings have not become “concrete and definite.” The court reasoned that limiting the exemption to cases with a clear prospect of prosecution would expose the sensitive early stages of figuring out whether a crime occurred and who committed it.³ The result is broad cover for withholding investigative material, though the exemption is not absolute and does not override the CPRA’s separate requirements to release basic information about arrests, reported crimes, and identities of individuals involved in incidents.

Personnel, Medical, and Similar Files — Former Subdivision (c)

Former section 6254(c) exempted “personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The identical language now sits at 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 the information, an approach traced back to Braun v. City of Taft (1984). Medical history and disciplinary details for a rank-and-file employee are typically protected. Salary, job title, and dates of employment for public officials are generally disclosable because the accountability interest outweighs the privacy intrusion.

Agencies sometimes stretch this exemption across an entire personnel file when only portions contain genuinely private information. A denial on this ground is worth pushing back on if the agency has not considered redacting the sensitive portions and releasing the rest.

Trade Secrets and Business Data — Former Subdivisions (d) and (e)

Several subdivisions protected confidential business information. 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

Trade secret protection under the CPRA works alongside California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Civil Code section 3426.1 defines a trade secret as information — 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 When a business submits proprietary information to a regulator, the material does not become public simply because a government office holds it. In Uribe v. Howie (1971), the Court of Appeal enjoined disclosure of detailed pesticide application reports where commercial operators had developed proprietary equipment modifications, chemical formulations, and dosage techniques over many years.⁵

Preliminary Drafts and Deliberative Materials — Former Subdivision (a)

Former section 6254(a) exempted 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 This “deliberative process” exemption has two limits agencies sometimes overlook. The record has to be preliminary or internal rather than a final policy document, and it cannot be something the agency keeps in its normal files. Retention weakens the claim substantially.

In Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court (1991), the Supreme Court allowed the Governor to withhold his appointment calendars, concluding that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighed the interest in release.⁶ The “clearly outweighs” standard puts the burden on the agency to justify withholding, not on the requester to justify disclosure.

Other Categories That Appear Regularly

The remaining subdivisions of section 6254 covered more specialized categories. They come up less often, but each is a live exemption under a new section number in the 7923 to 7929 range.²

Pending litigation records involving the agency, exempt until the case is resolved or settled (former subdivision (b)).
Licensing exams, employment tests, and academic examination questions and data (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 collected in confidence by a local agency in connection with tax collection (former subdivision (i)).
Library circulation and borrowing records identifying what patrons have checked out (former subdivision (j)).

The Catch-All Balancing Test

Even where no listed exemption fits, an agency can withhold records under what practitioners call the catch-all. Government Code section 7922.000, formerly section 6255, requires the agency to show 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 The “clearly outweighs” language tilts the analysis toward disclosure. A vague interest in confidentiality is not enough; the agency has to identify a concrete harm.

How Courts Have Tested These Exemptions

Three decisions capture the range of results when a withholding gets litigated.

Haynie (2001) read the law enforcement exemption broadly. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department refused to release investigative records, and the Supreme Court held that records of an investigation are exempt so long as the investigation was undertaken to determine whether a law was violated, without any requirement that enforcement be imminent or likely.³

Times Mirror (1991) upheld the withholding of the Governor’s appointment calendars, finding that disclosure could compromise personal security and inhibit candid decision-making. Even records that are not obviously deliberative can be protected when the agency shows a concrete confidentiality interest that clearly outweighs the disclosure interest.⁶

ACLU of Northern California v. Superior Court (2011) went the other way. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation sought to withhold the names of pharmaceutical companies it had approached to buy execution drugs, invoking the deliberative process privilege and the catch-all. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and ordered disclosure, holding that the department’s confidentiality claims did not clearly outweigh the public’s interest in knowing how the state carries out capital punishment.⁸ Agencies bear the burden on every withholding, and courts scrutinize whether it has actually been met.

If an Agency Cites One of These Exemptions to Deny Your Request

An agency that withholds records has to identify the specific exemption it is relying on. A blanket refusal without explanation does not comply with the CPRA. The usual first move is an informal appeal to the agency’s records custodian or legal counsel, explaining why the exemption does not fit or why redaction would resolve the issue. This works more often than requesters expect, particularly when the initial denial was overly broad.

If informal efforts do not produce the records, you can file a lawsuit asking a court to order disclosure. Government Code section 7923.115 requires the court to award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to a requester who prevails, and the agency pays rather than the individual official.⁹ The fee-shifting exists to keep agencies from stonewalling requesters without the means to hire counsel. The provision runs both directions on a narrow track: a court that finds the lawsuit clearly frivolous can award fees to the agency, so a genuine basis for believing the records are disclosable is a prerequisite before filing.

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