section 6255(a) test under catch all exception in California

2014(Compare City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1018-1025 [balancing test under catch-all exception of section 6255, subd. (a), favors privacy interests of citizens complaining about airport noise over public interest in disclosure] and Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 383, 399 ) [public entity has no obligation to obtain fund information from private investment firms] with International Federation, supra, 42 Cal.4th 319, 346 [peace officers' names and salary information not protected from CPRA disclosure under 8 exemption o

2014(Compare City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1018-1025 [balancing test under catch-all exception of section 6255, subd. (a), favors privacy interests of citizens complaining about airport noise over public interest in disclosure] and Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 383, 399 ) [public entity has no obligation to obtain fund information from private investment firms] with International Federation, supra, 42 Cal.4th 319, 346 [peace officers' names and salary information not protected from CPRA disclosure under 8 exemption o

2014(Compare City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1018-1025 [balancing test under catch-all exception of section 6255, subd. (a), favors privacy interests of citizens complaining about airport noise over public interest in disclosure] and Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 383, 399 ) [public entity has no obligation to obtain fund information from private investment firms] with International Federation, supra, 42 Cal.4th 319, 346 [peace officers' names and salary information not protected from CPRA disclosure under 8 exemption o

2014(Compare City of San Jose v. Superior Court, supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1018-1025 [balancing test under catch-all exception of section 6255, subd. (a), favors privacy interests of citizens complaining about airport noise over public interest in disclosure] and Regents of University of California v. Superior Court (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 383, 399 ) [public entity has no obligation to obtain fund information from private investment firms] with International Federation, supra, 42 Cal.4th 319, 346 [peace officers' names and salary information not protected from CPRA disclosure under 8 exemption o

2003(Black Panther Party, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at p. 656 .) Even if a particular item is not specifically exempt from disclosure, section 6255 establishes a catch-all provision that permits withholding of a record if the agency can justify nondisclosure “by demonstrating that... on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” A claim that disclosure of a particular item violates an individual’s constitutional right to privacy is analyzed under essentially the same balancing test a

1986The Act endows the agency with discretionary authority to override the statutory exceptions when a dominating public interest favors disclosure. [7] ( Black Panther Party v. Kehoe (1974) 42 Cal. App.3d 645, 656 [ 117 Cal. Rptr. 106 ].) In addition to these express exceptions, section 6255 establishes a catch-all exception that permits the government agency to withhold a record if it can demonstrate that "on the facts of a particular case the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record." [8] (Italics added.) Def

2003(Black Panther Party, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at p. 656 .) Even if a particular item is not specifically exempt from disclosure, section 6255 establishes a catch-all provision that permits withholding of a record if the agency can justify nondisclosure “by demonstrating that... on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” A claim that disclosure of a particular item violates an individual’s constitutional right to privacy is analyzed under essentially the same balancing test a

2003(Black Panther Party, supra, 42 Cal.App.3d at p. 656 .) Even if a particular item is not specifically exempt from disclosure, section 6255 establishes a catch-all provision that permits withholding of a record if the agency can justify nondisclosure “by demonstrating that... on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record.” A claim that disclosure of a particular item violates an individual’s constitutional right to privacy is analyzed under essentially the same balancing test a

2003(San Diego Union v. City Council (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 947, 955 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 45 ] [Brown Act prohibits closed city council sessions for purpose of setting salaries of officers and employees].) Based on this loss of anonymity, the Daily News reasons that public employees, unlike their private counterparts, have no legally recognized *1512 privacy right to control dissemination of their individually identified salary information.

2003(San Diego Union v. City Council (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 947, 955 [ 196 Cal.Rptr. 45 ] [Brown Act prohibits closed city council sessions for purpose of setting salaries of officers and employees].) Based on this loss of anonymity, the Daily News reasons that public employees, unlike their private counterparts, have no legally recognized *1512 privacy right to control dissemination of their individually identified salary information.