This decision holds that the trial court properly required a party seeking a preliminary injunction under the Public Records Act (Gov. Code 6250, et seq.) to post an injunction bond under CCP 529–to support an injunction against routine destruction of older public records, some of which plaintiffs sought under the PRA. Nothing in the Public Records Act conflicted with section 529 or exempted PRA plaintiffs from its requirements. Also, the requirement of a preliminary injunction bond was not an undue restraint on freedom of speech. A bond has nothing to do with plaintiffs’ ability to speak as they please.