TYSON vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INNOVATION

26WM000102: TYSON vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INNOVATION 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

Tentative Ruling

DATE/TIME: August 20, 2026, 1:30 p.m. DEP. NO.: 3A JUDGE: HON. JENNIFER K. CLERK: S. PAUL ROCKWELL

MARDARIOUS TYSON, Case No.: 26WM000102 Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INNOVATION, Respondent. Nature of Proceedings: Petition for Writ of Mandate

The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on the above matter, set for hearing in Department 3A, on Thursday, August 20, 2026, at 1:30 p.m. The tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court, unless a party desiring to be heard so advises the Clerk of Department 3A no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the Clerk that such party has notified the other side of its intention to appear.

The Court strongly encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. However, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing.

The parties may join the Zoom session for the hearing by audio and/or video through the following link: DEPT JUDGE ZOOM LINK MEETING ID 3A Hon. Jennifer K. https://saccourt-ca- 161 5277 4854 Rockwell gov.zoomgov.com/j/16152774854

26WM000102: TYSON vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INNOVATION 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

Parties requesting services of a Court Reporter will need to arrange for private Court Reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code § 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a Court Reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by using the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore, available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

If a Court Reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list is not used, aStipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing. Once the form is signed, it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 3A.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 69959, Court Reporters are not permitted through the use of remote technology, and any Court Reporter designated for the hearing shall be physically present in the Courtroom.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a Court Reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 3A at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the Clerk of Department 3A will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official Court Reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Introduction

Petitioner Mendarious Tyson initiated this action to enforce Respondent Department of Financial Protection and Innovation’s (Respondent or Department) obligations under the California Public Records Act (CPRA). Because the record establishes that the Department complied with the CPRA in responding to Petitioner’s requests for public records, the Petition will be denied.

Background

In or around July of 2025, Petitioner submitted two complaints to the Department, apparently in connection with a real property transaction. (Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate [Pet.] ¶¶ 11- 12, Exhs. A, B.) These complaints were designated Complaint CN0029617 and Complaint

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000102: TYSON vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INNOVATION 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

CN0029568. (Ibid.)

On September 30, 2025, the Department notified Petitioner by email that one of his complaints, Complaint CN0029617, had been referred to the Department of Real Estate. (Pet. Exh. B.) The Department explained that the entity that was the subject of Complaint CN0029617 was regulated by the Department of Real Estate, and thus that agency was the appropriate recipient of Petitioner’s complaint. (Pet. Exh. B, C.)

On March 13, 2026, Petitioner submitted a request to the Department pursuant to the CPRA, which the Department designated PRA Request No. 3315. (Pet. ¶ 13; Declaration of Jesse Mattson in support of Opp. [Mattson Decl.] ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) Petitioner requested “a written explanation for DFPI’s closure of my complaints CN0029617 and CN0029568 on July 24, 2025, and to request that DFPI reopen and reinvestigate these matters under applicable California law and DFPI complaint procedures.” (Mattson Decl. Exh. 1.) Specifically, Petitioner sought:

[A] detailed written explanation that includes: 1. The exact reason(s) each complaint was closed.

2. Whether DFPI determined the matter was: - outside jurisdiction, - lacking evidence, - resolved by a respondent’s explanation, - duplicative of another matter, or – closed for another procedural reason.

3. The investigative steps taken, including what documents were reviewed and whether the respondents were contacted.

4. Any finding notes, or closing memorandum that summarizes DFPI’s analysis.

(Ibid.)

The Department responded to PRA Request No. 3315 on March 23, 2025 by email. (Mattson Decl. Exh. 2.) The Department stated that it had completed a review of its records and identified documents responsive to Petitioner’s request, which consisted of “CN0029617 complaint and documents” and “CN0029568 complaint and documents.” (Ibid.) The Department produced Petitioner’s two complaints, as well as his correspondence to the Department in connection with those complaints. (Ibid.) Regarding the remainder of PRA Request No. 3315, the Department stated:

Your request seeks, in part, copies of records that are exempt from disclosure under the following express provisions of the Public Records Act:

 Government Code § 7929.000, subdivision (c) [Records contained in, or related to, preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency and intra-agency communications prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, the DFPI];  Government Code § 7929.000, subdivision (d) [Records contained in, or related

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000102: TYSON vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INNOVATION 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

to, information received in confidence by the DFPI];  Government Code § 7923.600, subdivision (a) [Disclosure of records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by the DFPI]; (Ibid.)

Thereafter, Petitioner sent several emails to the Department contending that the response to PRA Request No. 3315 was unsatisfactory. (Mattson Decl. ¶ 5, Exh. 3.)

On April 1, 2026, the Department sent a letter response to Petitioner’s email correspondence. (Matson Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 4.) The April 1, 2026, letter explained that while the Department “takes complaints against the licensees it regulates seriously[,]” the Department’s “investigations and examinations are confidential, so the [Department] is unable to share information concerning the closure of CN0029568.” (Ibid.) The letter cited the exemptions in Government Code, section 7929.000, subdivisions (b) through (d), and Government Code, section 7923.600 in support of its withholding of information regarding complaint closure. (Ibid.)

Regarding Complaint No. CN0029617, the Department’s April 1, 2026, letter reiterated that the subject of that complaint was not a licensee of the Department, “and therefore not subject to the [Department’s] jurisdiction.” (Matson Decl. ¶ 6, Exh. 4.) “As such,” the letter stated, “[Complaint No. CN0029617] was closed for that reason.” (Ibid.) The letter concluded by declining Petitioner’s request that the Department provide a privilege log identifying withheld records, citing caselaw recognizing the absence of any duty under the CPRA obliging an agency to create a log of exempt documents. (Ibid, citing Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, 1073.)

By correspondence of the same date, April 1, 2026, Petitioner responded to the Department’s letter with a “formal and refined request under the [CPRA].” (Mattson Decl. Exh. 5.) Petitioner stated:

I request the following non-exempt information and records:

1. A factual statement identifying the basis for closure of each complaint, including whether closure was based on jurisdiction, lack of evidence, or other administrative determination.

2. A general description of investigative steps taken, if any, sufficient to demonstrate that a review occurred.

3. Identification of categories of documents reviewed or relied upon in reaching the determination.

4. Any final, non-exempt summaries, conclusions, or determinations reflecting DFPI’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000102: TYSON vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INNOVATION 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

decision-making.

(Mattson Decl. Exh. 5.)

The Department construed Petitioner’s April 1, 2026, correspondence as a new request under the CPRA, which it designated PRA Request No. 3378. (Mattson Decl. ¶ 7, Exh. 6.) On April 8, 2026, the Department sent a letter to Petitioner containing its response to PRA Request No. 3378. (Id. at ¶ 12, Exh. 6.) The April 8, 2026, response letter again explained that Complaint CN0029617 was closed because the Department did not have jurisdiction over the entity that was the subject of the complaint, and the complaint was referred to the Department of Real Estate. (Ibid.) The letter also reiterated the Department’s position that Petitioner’s requests for information about the basis for the closure of Complaint CN0029568, which apparently was investigated by the Department, sought records exempt from disclosure under the CPRA:

As to Complaint CN0029568, again, as disclosed in my previous letter dated April 1, 2026 to you (and other communications you have had with the DFPI), the basis for closure of that complaint is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 7923.600, which provides, in relevant part, that: “ [T]his division does not require the disclosure of records of investigations conducted by any other state or local agency for licensing purposes.”

In other words, your request for “a factual statement identifying the basis for closure”, “a general description of investigative steps taken”, “identification of categories of documents reviewed or relied upon in reaching the determination”, and “any final, non exempt summaries, conclusions, or determinations reflecting DFPI’s decision-making” would all fall under this exemption. To be clear, the factual basis for withholding records that may be responsive to your request is that each of your requests pertains to a confidential investigation conducted by the DFPI for licensing purposes.

(Ibid.)

Petitioner filed this action on April 13, 2026. Petitioner alleges that the Department’s “categorical refusal is overbroad” – Petitioner contends the Department has failed to establish that it conducted an adequate search for responsive records and has disclosed all non-exempt records that can be segregated from exempt records. (See e.g. Pet. ¶ 28.)

Legal Framework

The PRA “was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000102: TYSON vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INNOVATION 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

of the public access to information in the possession of public agencies.” (Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, 425.) The statute creates “a presumptive right of access to any record created or maintained by a public agency that relates in any way to the business of the public agency [citation].” (City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 616, emphasis in original.) Although “[e]very such record must be disclosed unless a statutory exemption is shown,” the PRA establishes “a variety of exemptions, many of which are designed to protect individual privacy.” (Ibid, quotations, citations omitted.)

For example, “the CPRA does not require agencies to permit public inspection of records that are exempted or prohibited from public disclosure pursuant to state or federal law, including Evidence Code provisions relating to privilege.” (Castanares v. Superior Court (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 295, 304, citing Gov. Code, § 7927.705.) Also, “law enforcement investigatory files typically are categorically exempt from the CPRA’s general requirement of disclosure.” (Id. at p. 304, citing Gov. Code § 7923.600.)

Upon receipt of a request under the PRA, the agency must first determine whether the request seeks any disclosable records in the agency’s possession and “promptly notify” the requester of its determination and its reasons for withholding any records. (Gov. Code, § 7922.535, subd. (a).) Where a request is denied, in whole or in part, the agency must provide a response in writing that (i) sets forth the names and titles of each person responsible for the denial, and (ii) justifies withholding any records by complying with Government Code section 7922.000. (Gov.

Code, § 7922.540.) Second, the agency must provide the non-exempt requested records. (Gov. Code, § 7922.530.) “Unless a records request is overbroad or unduly burdensome, agencies are obliged to disclose all records they can locate ‘with reasonable effort.’ [Citation.]” (City of San Jose, supra, 2 Cal.5th at p. 627.) “In general, the scope of an agency’s search for public records ‘need only be reasonably calculated to locate responsive documents.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

Discussion

The Department relied upon three statutory exemptions in responding to Petitioner’s CPRA request:

(1) Government Code, section 7923.600, subdivision (a), which exempts from disclosure “investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.” (Gov. Code, § 7923.600, subd. (a).)

(2) Government Code section 7929.000, subdivision (c), which exempts from disclosure “[p]reliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intraagency communications prepared by, or on behalf of” “any state agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of the issuance of securities or of financial institutions.” (Gov. Code, § 7929.000, subd. (a), (c).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000102: TYSON vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INNOVATION 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

(3) Government Code section 7929.000, subdivision (d), which exempts “[i]nformation received in confidence” by the same category of agencies state agency responsible for regulation of financial institutions, as described in subdivision (a). (Gov. Code, § 7929.000, subd. (a), (d).)

There appears to be no dispute that the Department is a state agency with regulatory authority over financial institutions as described in Government Code section 7929.000, subdivision (a). Nor does Petitioner dispute that the exemptions in Government Code sections 7923.600 and 7929.000 apply to investigative records of the Department. (Opening Mem. 7:22-26.)

Rather, Petitioner appears to argue that the Department has failed to sufficiently establish the applicability of the exemptions it invoked. Petitioner describes the question for resolution as: “Whether [the Department] may categorically withhold every record responsive to [Petitioner’s request] without demonstrating whether any discrete final closure, disposition, or administrativestatus record exists outside confidential investigative material and without confirming that reasonably segregable nonexempt portions were reviewed for disclosure.” (Opening Mem. 4:13- 17.)

As the Department explained in its response to Petitioner’s requests for records, however, all of the information included in Petitioner’s requests pertains directly to the Department’s investigation of the complaints Petitioner himself submitted. Petitioner seeks records “identifying the basis for closure” of his complaints, as well as those containing a “description of investigative steps taken,” “identification of categories of documents reviewed or relied upon in reaching the determination,” and “any final, non-exempt summaries, conclusions, or determinations reflecting [the Department’s] decisionmaking.” (Mattson Decl., Exh. 5.) All of these categories of records implicate the Department’s investigation itself, which Petitioner concedes are encompassed by the statutory exemptions for “investigatory or security files.” (Gov. Code, § 7923.600, subd. (a).)

Petitioner repeatedly argues that the Department must demonstrate that no non-exempt records exist, contending that the Department’s response “does not identify whether a final status, entry, closure code, closing transmittal, or comparable administrative disposition record was searched for, and it does not confirm that any record was reviewed for reasonably segregable portions.” (Opening Mem. 9:3-7; see also Reply 16:6-8 [“Petitioner seeks existing nonexempt closure, disposition, status, and administrative records, or reasonably segregable portions of mixed records”].)

Given that Petitioner’s request included only records contained within the Department’s investigative files, however, there is nothing to suggest that any non-exempt records exist. The

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000102: TYSON vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INNOVATION 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

Department presented evidence that “the only Department records responsive to PRA Request No. 3378’s requests regarding Complaint CN0029568 were contained in the investigative file for Complaint CN0029568.” (Mattson Decl. ¶ 9.) Such records are exempt from disclosure under Government Code, § 7923.600. The Department presented further evidence that “the responsive records in the Department’s investigation file related to Complaint CN0029568 were related to preliminary drafts, notes, and communication and prepared by the Department or received in confidence by the Department.” (Mattson Decl. ¶ 10.) These types of records are also exempt from disclosure under Government Code section 7929.000, subdivisions (c) and (d).

Further, contrary to Petitioner’s argument, the Department did segregate and disclose responsive documents it determined were non-exempt: “[T]he initial complaint and supporting documents for Complaint CN0029568, while part of the investigation file, could be disclosed because they were filed by [Petitioner] himself.” (Mattson Decl. ¶ 11.)[1]

The Department’s response satisfied its obligations under the CPRA. The Department reviewed the request and determined that all responsive documents were contained within its investigative file and/or consisted of preliminary drafts, notes, or information submitted to the Department in confidence, and were therefore exempt from disclosure. The Department then segregated and provided to Petitioner those documents the Department determined to be non-exempt form disclosure.

To the degree Petitioner argues that the Department should be required to “provide a supplemental declaration describing the search conducted,” Petitioner cites no authority for such a requirement. The Department provided a declaration from Mr. Mattson, Senior Counsel for the Department, who states he has personal knowledge of the Department’s record keeping practices, and that in preparing the Department’s response to Petitioner’s PRA Request No. 3378, he “examined the Department’s files and records” pertaining to Petitioner’s previous request under the CPRA, as well as “the investigation files of Complaints CN0029568 and CN0029617.” (Mattson Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4.) Given that Petitioner’s request pertained to these specific complaints, the scope of Mr. Mattson’s search for records is reasonable.

Similarly, Petitioner’s demand that the Department “identify whether any existing final closure, disposition, status, or administrative record exists” and “identify the categories of responsive records withheld and the exemptions asserted for each category” is unsupported by any authority. (Reply, 15:7-11.) The Department confirmed that the only responsive documents were contained within its investigative files. Further, it is well established that the CPRA does not require agencies to produce a log or index of withheld documents in their initial response to a request. (Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061, 1074-1075 [“To require each public agency to catalog the responsive documents for each of the requests it receives—even when the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000102: TYSON vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INNOVATION 08/20/2026 Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate in Department 3A

agency could legitimately claim that all responsive documents are exempt from disclosure— would be burdensome and of scant public benefit”], italics in original.) Nor is there any basis for the Court to order the preparation of such a catalogue here. The Department’s evidence establishes that Petitioner’s request sought exempt records and that the Department adequately documented its search for and basis for withholding such records. As Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any likelihood that non-exempt records exist, there is no justification for the preparation of a log of withheld documents.

In sum, although Petitioner contends that he seeks only “existing nonexempt closure, disposition, status, and administrative records, or reasonably segregable portions of mixed records” (Reply, 16:6-8), Petitioner has failed to establish any inference that such records have been withheld. Accordingly, the Petition will be denied.

Disposition

The Petition for Writ of Mandate is denied. Respondent shall prepare a judgment consistent with this ruling that attaches this ruling as an exhibit, submit it to the opposing party for approval as to form, and thereafter submit it to the Court for signature in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312. (See also Local Rule 2.15.)

[1] This determination is not at issue here. The Court notes that the exemptions in the CPRA are permissive, not mandatory, and agencies are not required to withhold exempt records unless another provision of law prohibits disclosure: “Unless disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law, the provisions listed in Section 7920.505 [setting forth exemptions] do not prevent any agency from opening its records concerning the administration of the agency to public inspection.” (Gov. Code, § 7921.500, see also Iloh v. Regents of University of California (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 513, 524, quoting Marken v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1262 [“Moreover, the exemptions from disclosure provided by [the CPRA] are permissive, not mandatory: They allow nondisclosure but do not prohibit disclosure”].)