Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate
The Court is not, at this time, determining whether Plaintiff's claims are subject to arbitration or whether any delegation provision applies those questions to the arbitrator.
Rather, the Court concludes it retains authority to address the manner in which parallel proceedings are initiated and to determine whether interim relief is appropriate to preserve the orderly administration of justice pending resolution of arbitrability. And indeed, the Court notes that the AAA seems to agree, as it has already suspended the arbitration in deference to this Court's determination.
It appears to the Court that, under the circumstances presented, Defendant should have sought a court order compelling arbitration in the first instance before initiating proceedings that purport to assert Plaintiff's claims and Defendant's defenses. The Court further concludes that it has authority to regulate the relationship between this action and the AAA proceeding, notwithstanding Defendant's arguments to the contrary.
The Court vacates the June 9, 2026 hearing.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22: CV-26-000101 - JACKSON, NICHOLAS vs CITY OF MODESTO - Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate - DENIED.
For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the petition. Respondents to submit a proposed order consistent with this ruling within 5 court days.
Background
On January 7, 2026, Petitioner Nicholas Jackson filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code sections 7920.000 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 1085 (the "Petition").
The Petition asks the Court to order Respondents City of Modesto ("City") and the Modesto Police Department (the "Police Department"; collectively, "Respondents") to release body worn camera footage and related audiovisual records arising from a completed traffic stop involving Petitioner Jackson.
The parties submitted briefing and the Court held a hearing on May 8, 2026. Both parties presented oral argument at the hearing and Respondents indicated they would submit additional materials in camera. Subsequently, Respondents submitted additional documents, including an in camera submission.
Petitioner's Unopposed Request for Judicial Notice
On April 23, 2026, Petitioner submitted a Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Petition requesting that the Court take judicial notice of three documents pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 452 and 453: 1) Petitioner's California Public Records Act request dated December 4, 2025 (Exhibit A); 2) Respondent's written response dated December 22, 2025 (Exhibit B); and 3) Redacted CAD report produced by Respondent (Exhibit C).
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Respondents have no opposition or objections. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner's unopposed request for judicial notice.
The California Public Records Act ("CPRA")
"Each agency, upon a request for a copy of records, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor." (Gov. Code, Sec. 7922.535.)
"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." (Gov. Code, Sec. 7922.540.)
"The notification of denial shall set forth the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial." (Ibid.)
"An agency shall justify withholding any record by complying with Section 7922.000." (Ibid.)
Under the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"), any person may institute a proceeding for a writ of mandate to enforce the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record. (Gov. Code, Sec. 7923.000.)
"[T]he court shall set the times for hearings and responsive pleadings with the object of securing a decision as to the matters at issue at the earliest possible time." (Gov. Code, Sec. 7923.005.)
"When it is alleged that public records have been improperly withheld, section 6259, subdivision (a) [i.e., the predecessor statute to Government Code section 7923.100] directs that 'the court shall order the officer or person charged with withholding the records' to disclose the records or show cause why they should not be produced." (City of San Jose v. Superior Ct. (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 622; Gov. Code, Sec. 7923.100.)
"The court shall decide the case after . . . examin[ing] the record in camera [,] examin[ing] any papers filed by the parties[,] and consider[ing] any oral argument and additional evidence as the court may allow." (Gov. Code, Sec. 7923.105.)
"If the court finds that the public official's decision to refuse disclosure is not justified under Section 7922.000 or any provision listed in Section 7920.505, the court shall order the public official to make the record public." (Gov. Code, Sec. 7923.110.)
"If the court finds that the public official was justified in refusing to make the record public, the court shall return the record to the public official without disclosing its content, together with an order supporting the decision refusing disclosure." (Ibid.)
Whether Respondents violated the CPRA
Exhibit A to Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice is identified as a copy of Petitioner's CPRA Request (the "CPRA Request"). It is signed received by "B. Diaz de Leon" on the date of "12-4-25." The CPRA Request is also stamped "DEC 4'25am9:39."
Exhibit B to Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice is identified as an email notification of Respondents' written response to Petitioner's CPRA Request. The email was received by Petitioner on Monday, December 22, 2025 at 1:31 pm.
The written response states that "[r]ecords . . . have been withheld pursuant to California Government Code section 7923.600-7923.625," that "City has redacted certain information . . . pursuant to Government Code section 7927.700," and that "[d]ocuments have been withheld pursuant to California Government Code 7927.705, Penal Code section 1054.5."
Exhibit C to Petitioner's Request for Judicial Notice is identified as the redacted CAD report produced by Respondents. The second page of the exhibit contains a letter on Modesto Police Department letterhead from Beatrice Diaz Deleon to Petitioner Jackson that is dated December 11, 2025. The letter states the following: "Any body camera footage, dash camera footage in relation to the incident is considered evidence and is releasable only through subpoena."
Here, Petitioner's CPRA Request was dated December 4, 2025 and was received by Respondents on December 4, 2025. (Ex. A.) Ten days after December 4, 2025 puts the deadline to respond on December 15, 2026. Respondents responded to the CPRA Request approximately five business days later on December 22, 2025. (Exs. B, C.)
Respondents also contend that they received another, separate CPRA request from Petitioner via mail on December 11, 2025, to which they timely responded within 10 days on December 22, 2025. (Amended Declaration of Heidi Jenkins.)
Respondents failed to respond within the statutory 10 days proscribed by Government Code, section 7922.535, but "[t]he Act provides no remedy for failure to timely comply with a request for records." Rogers v. Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469, 483, as modified (Oct. 13, 1993) .
The California Supreme Court has explained "that requiring disclosure of otherwise exempt records as a penalty for delay in complying with the Act's timing requirements is unduly harsh." Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1065, 1072.
The Court finds that Respondents' written response to the CPRA Request otherwise sufficiently complies with Government Code, section 7922.540.
Respondents contend that, aside from the redacted CAD report they provided, the requested records are exempt as an investigation file. The Court has reviewed Respondents' May 14, 2026 sworn declaration submitted to the Court in camera.
The Court finds that Respondents have sufficiently established the existence of an investigation undertaken for the purpose of determining whether a violation of the Vehicle Code may have or did occur. Thus, the investigation exemption applies here.
Not "everything law enforcement officers do [is shielded] from disclosure." (Haynie v. Superior Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1061). "The records of investigation exempted under [Section 7923.600] encompass only those investigations undertaken for the purpose of determining whether a violation of law may occur or has occurred." (Ibid.)
Accordingly, pursuant to Government Code, section 7923.110, the Court will not order Respondents to make the requested records public.