privacy california public-records
Does California&#39;s Information Practices Act (IPA) of 1977 apply to individuals after death?
<p>I'm in the midst of researching a person who was born in 1892 and died in 1969 in California. The subject has no living heirs.</p>

<p>I've requested documents from the California Department of Consumers Affairs regarding a license held by this individual when they were alive. </p>

<p>The state has returned many valuable documents but much of the useful info has been redacted. For example, the individuals employer names and the individuals work/home addresses have been redacted. </p>

<p>The state is citing California Civil Code sections 1798.1 and 1798.3 as to why the information may not be released.</p>

<p>I've read the code and it defined the protected individual as a "natural person" - but I'm unable to determine if a deceased person is still considered a natural person. </p>

<p>In short, is there any legal argument for requesting that the information, which is nearing 100 years old, should be released?</p>

<p>Dead people are "natural people" (the term is used to distinguish corporations and so on). There does not seem to be any exception made in the case the individual is dead or has been dead for some time, other than to conservators, beneficiaries, or for statistical purposes (etc.), or with permission of next of kin.</p>

<p>The <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&amp;division=7.&amp;title=1.&amp;part=&amp;chapter=3.5.&amp;article=1." rel="nofollow noreferrer">Public Records Act</a> limits disclosure of personal information but has an explicit exemption</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If the subject whose privacy is to be protected is deceased, an heir,
  beneficiary, designated immediate family member, or authorized legal
  representative of the deceased subject whose privacy is to be
  protected.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>That means, protection of privacy of a dead person was a legislative concern 9 years before the Information Practices Act was enacted. The laws are not exactly the same, but since both laws cover government records and their disclosure, there may be similar "privacy concerns" reasoning underlying both laws.</p>

<p>It would appear<sup><a href="https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/natural-person/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a>, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_person" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2</a>, <a href="https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-dictionary/natural-person" rel="nofollow noreferrer">3</a>, <a href="https://thelawdictionary.org/natural-person/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">4</a></sup> that a dead person is no longer a natural person. Records about a dead person would not be protected.</p>

<p>However, it doesn't necessarily follow that the protections of <a href="https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-1798-3.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1798.3</a> for records that were created when the person was alive would cease on that person's death. Some rights of the individual survive death and some don't.</p>

<p>I don't believe there is any case law on the matter so its an open question. If you do challenge it, please come back and let us know the result.</p>

<p>To be honest, it seems like a significant oversight on the part of the legislators - laws in other jurisdictions I know of specifically deal with how long records stay sealed after death.</p>
