On Friday, a Superior Court judge signaled a willingness to advance a significant public records lawsuit by the Los Angeles Times against the city over Mayor Karen Bass’ text messages.
Judge Stephen Goorvitch indicated he was inclined to allow the case to proceed to discovery and trial, focusing on whether the city’s auto-delete policy for texts violates public records laws. The dispute arose from a request for messages Bass sent during a critical period in January 2025.
The issue has sparked debate over transparency in government and the practical limits of record retention. Many question whether cities can feasibly monitor every employee’s communications without overwhelming administrative burdens, Courthouse News Service reported.
The controversy began with a public records request by two Pulitzer Prize-winning LA Times reporters. They sought texts sent or received by Bass in January 2025, as deadly wildfires ravaged Pacific Palisades and Altadena.
During that crisis, Bass was in Ghana, drawing heavy criticism for being absent while the National Weather Service warned of severe fire risks. Reporters were later told that no texts existed because an auto-delete setting on her phone erased messages after 30 days.
The California Public Records Act, enacted in 1968, broadly defines public records as writings related to government business. However, it offers no clear guidance on retention, especially for electronic formats like texts, leaving room for judicial interpretation.
Some of Bass’ messages were eventually recovered by her staff. Still, the LA Times pursued legal action, seeking a court order to prevent the destruction of records under two years old if they pertain to official duties.
The city countered that such a mandate would create a logistical quagmire, requiring staff to manually sift through thousands of messages. In August, a judge found the initial Times petition overly broad, prompting an amended focus on auto-deletion.
On Jan. 23, 2026, Judge Goorvitch expressed sympathy for the revised complaint, leaning toward overruling the city’s latest objection. He questioned the city’s stance but deemed the Times’ case strong enough for trial, taking the matter under submission.
LA Times attorney Kelly Aviles argued access was vital to assess how many records were lost. She claimed a vast quantity of data was being erased under current policies.
The city’s representative, Reuben Cahn, insisted the lawsuit lacked legal grounding, calling the proposed review of all texts impractical. The city maintained that texts are merely “ephemeral types of electronic communication” not meant for permanent record.
“Ephemeral types of electronic communication,” the city argues, should not be treated as official documents. Yet, for those prioritizing accountability, isn’t it concerning that a mayor’s communications during a crisis could vanish without scrutiny?
“Critical fire weather conditions,” as forecasted by the National Weather Service, underscored the urgency of Bass’ presence in 2025. Conservatives might ask why a public servant would prioritize international travel over local emergencies, let alone allow key correspondence to disappear.
This case highlights a broader tension between bureaucratic convenience and the public’s right to know. For supporters of limited government, the city’s resistance to oversight suggests a troubling aversion to transparency in progressive-led administrations.
