A decision by the California State Supreme Court may force the University to reveal information it has fought to keep hidden.

On Sept. 30 the court decided not to hear an appeal by the University of California Board of Regents to overturn a court decision that forces them to disclose information regarding the management and investment performance of the University’s retirement fund.

The Coalition of University Employees the San Jose Mercury News and UC Berkeley Professor Emeritus Charles Schwarz filed a lawsuit in April in Alameda County Superior Court requesting the Regents disclose investment data from the $34 billion fund. C.U.E represents 18,000 clerical employees throughout the UC system.

Superior Court judge James Richman ruled in favor of the union in July and ordered UC to turn over the information. University lawyers asked Richman to reconsider the ruling in August but were rejected.

The University filed appeals with both the California State Appellate Court and the California State Court of Appeal in September, both of which were unsuccessful.

The Supreme Court’s ruling means the University is likely out of options, C.U.E. representative Jason Barnett said.

“We’re declaring victory,” Barnett said. “They’ve already been to the Supreme Court, so they can’t go any higher.”

University officials were unavailable for comment Tuesday.

Barnett said the union had not yet received any indication from the University about when they would release the information.

C.U.E., the San Jose Mercury News and Schwarz filed the lawsuit after UC refused to release information regarding its investments. The value of the fund fell an average of 21 percent over the last three years, according to the union, compared to an average 13 percent decline of the fund the UC picked to measure itself against, the Russell 3000 index.

“They picked the Russell because it includes 98 percent of the stocks in the market and is viewed as a stable fund,” Barnett said. “The decline in the Russell shows that, yes, it’s been a bad three years all across the market, but not as bad as it has been for the UC.”

Barnett said the University’s main reasoning for keeping investment information hidden has been that disclosure would prevent the University from participating in high-yield private equity funds that keep performance information hidden. A release from the union said 22 of the 65 private equity funds in which the UC was invested had their performance returns disclosed by other public institutions.

“Our main message throughout this has been that decisions made with public money should be made in public,” Barnett said.