In Copley Press, Inc. v. Superior Court (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1272, a newspaper sought disclosure under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code, 6250 et seq.) of documents and tape recordings of a closed Civil Service Commission (Commission) hearing relating to a peace officer's administrative appeal of a disciplinary matter. (Copley Press, supra, at p. 1279.) When it failed to get all the records it sought from the Commission, the newspaper filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking access to the remaining records. (Ibid.) The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's judgment regarding what records were to be disclosed. (Id. at p. 1279.) The Supreme Court found records that are confidential under section 832.7 are exempted from disclosure under the CPRA (Copley Press, supra, at p. 1283), section 832.7 is not limited in its application to criminal and civil proceedings (Copley Press, supra, at pp. 1284-1286), section 832.7 applied to the Commission's records (Copley Press, supra, at pp. 1286-1299), and that there is no constitutional right of access to records covered by section 832.7. (Copley Press, supra, at pp. 1299-1305.) The Supreme Court was presented in Copley Press with issues surrounding a newspaper's effort to force disclosure of records, not issues stemming from an alleged improper release of records. The California Supreme Court held that the word "confidential" in Penal Code section 832.7(a) has independent significance. There, the court considered a newspaper publisher's request under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, 6250 et seq.) for records relating to a peace officer's administrative appeal of a disciplinary matter. The publisher argued section 832.7(a) did not apply because it was not seeking disclosure in a criminal or civil proceeding. (Copley, at p. 1284.) Copley concluded the records were nonetheless confidential and not subject to disclosure under the public records act, reasoning, "If, in passing section 832.7, the Legislature had intended 'only to define procedures for disclosure in criminal and civil proceedings, it could have done so by stating that the records "shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code ... ," without also designating the information "confidential." ' Thus, by interpreting the word 'confidential' as 'establishing a general condition of confidentiality' , and interpreting the phrase 'shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code' as 'creating a limited exception to the general principle of confidentiality,' we 'give meaning to both clauses' of the provision in question. " (Copley, at p. 1285.) Because the personnel files were "confidential," they were exempt from disclosure under the public records act (Gov. Code, 6254, subd. (k)). (Copley, at p. 1283.)