California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: In Committee

AB 2507 — Public Records Act: exemptions: pending litigation.

Last action — From committee without further action.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, the California Public Records Act (CPRA) , requires state and local agencies to make public records available upon receipt of a request that reasonably describes an identifiable record not otherwise exempt from disclosure, upon the payment of fees to cover costs. Existing law exempts from the CPRA's disclosure requirements any records pertaining to pending litigation to which the public agency is a party, until the pending litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled. This bill would provide that outside attorney billing records, when they are prepared in connection with a pending civil action in which a public agency is a defendant, are exempt from the CPRA's disclosure provisions during the pendency of the litigation. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From committee without further action.

  2. In committee: Set, second hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  3. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  4. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Read second time and amended.

  5. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  6. Referred to Coms. on JUD. and L. GOV.

  7. Read first time.

  8. From printer. May be heard in committee March 25.

  9. Introduced. To print.

Sponsors

  • Bocanegra · Primary

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Bocanegra

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

public-safety civil-rights
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 2507 do?
Existing law, the California Public Records Act (CPRA) , requires state and local agencies to make public records available upon receipt of a request that reasonably describes an identifiable record not otherwise exempt from disclosure, upon the payment of fees to cover costs. Existing law exempts from the CPRA's disclosure requirements any records pertaining to pending litigation to which the public agency is a party, until the pending litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled. This bill would provide that outside attorney billing records, when they are prepared in connection with a pending civil action in which a public agency is a defendant, are exempt from the CPRA's disclosure provisions during the pendency of the litigation. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Who sponsors AB 2507?
AB 2507 is sponsored by Bocanegra.
What is the current status of AB 2507?
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 2507?
Track AB 2507 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2507

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 2507

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →