File No. 19120
SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST
Complaint Committee Date: September 15, 2020
D Petition/Complaint Page:~(<1 D Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney Page:-(g (.o?,, D Petitioner/Complainant Supporting Documents Page: \?l l\ D Respondent's Response Page: '::f? ':\ D Public Correspondence Page:_ D Order of Determination Page:_ D Minutes Page· LJ Administrator's Report Page:_ D No Attachments
OTHER D D D D D D D D D
Completed by: __c_._L_e~g~e_r ______Date 9/10/20
*An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file.
P659 I (BOS)
From: Google Forms
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Your form has a new entry.
Here are the results.
Complaint against which Office of City Attorney Department or Commission
Name of individual contacted ind iv respondents: City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Moira Walsh, Jana Clark, Wayne Snodgrass, Andrew Shen, at Joshua White, Brad Russi, David Ries, Alicia Cabrera, Paul Zarefsky, Buck Delventhal, Scott Minty, Joy Perez, J Department Givner, Elizabeth Coolbrith, Odaya Buta or Commission
Alleged Public Records Violation
Sunshine SFAC 67.21(b,c), 67.26, 67.27: failed to respond to a request for public records in a timely or complete mann Ordinance · failed to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record, and failed to justify Section: withholdings with clear reference to exemption statute or case law
PG60 Please See attachment from [email protected]: describe https ://cd n. m uckrock.com/outbound reg uest attach me nts/94383620Ano nymous/80695/vs20City20Atto rr alleged 20Adachi20Carmody20Records20-20COMPLAINT HlaEPBK.pdf violation
Name Anonymous
Email 80695-54486849@req uests. m uckrock.com
If anonymous, please let us know [email protected] how to contact you.Thank you.
Sent via Google Forms Email CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DENNIS J. HERRERA· PEDER J. V. THOREEN City Attorney Deputy City Attorney
Direct Dial: I415) 554-3846 Email: [email protected]
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force FROM: Peder J. V. Thoreen Deputy City Attorney DATE: January 13, 2020 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
COMPLAINT An anonymous complainant ("Complainant") alleges that San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Moira Walsh, Jana Clark, Wayne Snodgrass, Andrew Shen, Joshua White, Brad Russi, David Ries, Alicia Cabrera, Paul Zarefsky, Buck Delventhal, Scott Minty, Joy Perez, Jon Givner, Elizabeth Coolbrith, and Odaya Buta (collectively, "Respondents"), violated the Sunshine Ordinance by failing to respond to Complainant's requests in a timely and complete manner. COMPLAINANT FILES COMPLAINT
Complainant filed this complaint with the Task Force on November 13, 2019, specifically alleging that Respondents violated Administrative Code sections 67.2l(b, c), 67.26, and 67.27. JURISDICTION Respondents are subject to the Sunshine Ordinance and the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). Respondents do not dispute jurisdiction. APPLICABLE STATUTORY SECTIONS Section 67. of the San Francisco Administrative Code: • Section 67.21 governs responses to a public records request in general. • Section 67 .26 provides that withholding of public records shall be kept to a minimum. • Section 67 .27 sets f01ih requirements for justifying the withholding of information.
Cal. Government Code (CPRA) • Section 6253 sets forth the general requirements for the production of records. e Section 6254 sets forth exemptions from disclosure under the.CPRA.
Fox PLAZA . 1390 MARKET STREET, 7TH FLOOR . SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-3800 · FACSIMILE: (415) 437-4644
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241 \01419005.docx
P662 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 2 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
APPLICABLE CASE LAW " City ofSan Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608 (holding that when a city employee uses a personal account to communicate about public business, the writings may be subject to disclosure under the CPRA). " Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282 (holding that while attorney billing records of a public agency are not categorically exempt from disclosure under CPRA section 6254(k), they may be privileged where the content of the invoices reveal anything about legal consultation, and the privilege encompasses everything in an invoice regarding a matter that remains pending and active). " St. Croix v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 434 (holding that San Francisco's City Charter establishes an attorney-client relationship between the City Attorney and City agencies, and that attorney-client privileged communications in the contextof this relationship are not required to be disclosed under the Sunshine Ordinance). BACKGROUND On September 20, 2019, Complainant submitted a document request seeking from Respondents 30 categories of documents related to the keyvvords "adachi," "carmody," and "North Bay News." Complainant initially also requested documents using the keyword "public defender," but on September 26, 2019, Complainant and Respondents reached an agreement that Complainant withdraw that request. Complainant instead made an additional set of requests with the keyword "shield law." Although the requests sought metadata associated with these documents, Complainant clarified in a filing with the Task Force on November 13, 2019, that the present complaint raises no metadata issues. · ·
Respondents contend that they produced a statement pursuant to Administrative Code section 67.21(c) on September 30, 2019. See infra. Complainant contends that this response was untimely. See Admin. Code section 67.21(c) (requiring a written response within seven days). Respondents contend that they required an additional business day in order to provide a response consistent with Complainant's modified request. Complainant further contends that the statement was insufficient because, when stating that certain documents were withheld on the privilege grounds, Respondents were at least required to state the quantity of documents withheld under St. Croix v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 434. Relying primarily on Los Angeles County Ed. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, Respondents contend that doing so would reveal privileged information.
After requesting an extension for the production of documents, Respondents eventually produced over 2,000 documents. Complainant contends that the production was incomplete. First, Complainant contends that certain documents related to a paiiicular employee were
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241101419005 .docx P663 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13,2020 PAGE: 3 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
withheld. Respondents contend that their production included this employee's responsive documents.
Next, Complainant raises the following objections:
3-1. Some or all records claimed to be privileged. Respondents Herrera, Coolbrith, and Office of the City Attorney previously incorrectly asserted attorney-client and work-product privilege over.certain records in 19095 Anonymous v. Herrera, et al. and did not provide the (not genuinely privileged) records until complaints were proceeding so I have no reason to believe they have correctly asse1ied privilege this time either. Specifically, at least the following types of records cannot be so privileged and should be deemed public:
3-1-a. Records not written by an attorney, and not written by a client asking for legal advice
3-1-b. Records written by an attorney, but without any client being involved and without any legal interpretation (such as objective gathering of facts)
3-1-c. Records for which privilege has been waived by inclusion of any party on the thread who is neither a client nor an employee of the City Attorney's office (such as, but not limited to, Carmody or his attorneys, or any other journalist, of any· other records requestor)
3-1-d. Records for which exemption was previously waived by production to any other record requestor
3-2. Pg. 6, 7 redactions - this cannot be personal or health information. It could be some other exemption that has been failed to be cited.
3-3. Pg. 8, 9 redactions - business emails cannot be exempt, nor the identity of the recipient. Also Respondents disclosed Mr. Burke's business email address on pg 10 and many other places anyway.
3-4. Pg. 61, 63 - 2nd redaction only - you hid the email address and the name.
3-5. Pg. 77, 99 redaction - not sure what this could be
3-6. Pg. 224, 228, 230, 235, 237, 240, 243, 235, etc. - redaction hides both name and email address
3-7. Pg. 264 - all redactions, unclear what has been redacted
3-8. Pg. 406-409 - almost all of this document is redacted and all of it is challenged
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005 .docx P664 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 4 RE: Complaint Nc:i. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
3-9. Pg. 410-415 - almost all of this document is redacted and all of it is challenged ·
3-10. Pg. 418, 420, 422, 424, 426, 428, 430, 432, 434, 436 - I was provided small portions of very large images. The rest of the image was withheld without justification.
3-11. Pg. 451 - all redactions challenged, incl the incident number 3-12. Pg. 4 77-480 - hyper link urls in the mayor's newsletter withheld without justification
3-13. Pg. 482 - video hyperlink withheld
3-14. Pg. 492 - hyperlink of records provided.
3-15. Furthermore, since the records in that link on Pg. 492 were provided to Ms. Caen, they must also be provided to me with no additional redactions if they have not already been provided.
3-16. Pg. 495 - content redacted
3-17. Pg. 1283 - these redactions are government email addresses, not personal ones
3-18. Pg. 1972 - all attachments listed, it is unclear if these have been withheld or ·provided
3-19. Pg. 1986, 2017 - if these are privacy redactions for Adachi, I don't think privacy laws can apply to deceased persons
3-20. Pg. 2014 - there are no contents for file "#3"
In response, Respondents contend that ce1iain information was appropriately withheld under the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges; a password for a conference call number was appropriately redacted; third-parties' email, home addresses and license plate number were appropriately redacted; certain information was withheld because it reflected a rep01i pertaining to an ongoing investigation; and certain information was withheld pursuant to Evidence Code section 1040. 1 Respondents concede that two telephone numbers, certain email
1 Evidence Code section 1040 provides:
(a) As used in this section, "official information" means infonnation acquired in confidence by a public employee in the course of his or her duty and not open, or officially disclosed, to the public prior to the time the claim of privilege is made.
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005 .docx P665 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 5 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
addresses, and certain URLs were incorrectly redacted, and they provided that information in their response to the Task Force. Respondents acknowledge that they did not expressly state all of the legal bases for withholding information along with their production, but set forth their asserted bases in their submission to the Task Force. Respondents further assert that certain document requests were raised for the first time in the complaint filed with the Task Force, and that they have since provided those documents. QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT ASSIST IN DETERMINING FACTS "' Does the Complainant contend that the Respondents' November 26, 2019, submission to the Task Force failed to adequately respond to the complaint? If so, as to which specific issues? LEGAL ISSUES/LEGAL DETERMINATIONS "' Did Respondents· violate the Sunshine Ordinance or the CPRA by failing to provide a timely and complete response to Complainant's document requests? CONCLUSION THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE FOLLOWING FACTS TO BE TRUE:
THE TASK FORCE.FINDS THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS TO BE TRUE OR NOT TRUE. * * *
(b) A public entity has a privilege to refuse to disclose official information, and to prevent another from disclosing official information, if the privilege is claimed by a person authorized by the public entity to do so and either of the following apply:
(1) Disclosure is forbidden by an act of the Congress of the United States or a statute of this state.
(2) Disclosure of the information is against the public interest because there is a necessity for preserving the confidentiality of the information that outweighs the necessity for disclosure in the interest of justice; but no privilege may be claimed under this paragraph if any person authorized to do so has consented that the information be disclosed in the proceeding. In determining whether disclosure of the information is against the public interest, the interest of the public entity as a party in the outcome of the proceeding may not be considered.
(c) Notwithstanding any other law, the Employment Development Department shall disclose to law enforcement agencies, in accordance with subdivision (i) of Sectionl095 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, infonnation in its possession relating to any person if an arrest warrant has been issued for the person for commission of a felony.
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005 .docx P666 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 6 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
CHAPTER 67, SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (SUNSHINE ORDINANCE) SEC. 67.21. PROCESS FOR GAINING ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS; ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS (a) Every person having custody of any public record or public information, as defined herein, (hereinafter referred to as a custodian of a public record) shall, at nonnal times and during normal and reasonable hours of operation, without unreasonable delay, and without requiring an appointment, permit the public record, or any segregable portion of a record, to be inspected and examined by any person and shall furnish one copy thereof upon payment of a reasonable copying charge, not to exceed the lesser of the actual cost or ten cents per page. (b) A custodian of a public record shall, as soon as possible and within ten days following receipt of a request for inspection or copy of a public record, comply with such request. Such request may be delivered to the office of the custodian by the requester orally or in writing by fax, postal delivery, or e-mail. If the custodian believes the record or information requested is not a public record or is exempt, the custodian shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating, in writing as soon as possible and within ten days following receipt of a request, that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this ordinance. ( c) A custodian of a public record shall assist a requester in identifying the existence, form, and nature of any records or information maintained by, available to, or in the custody of the custodian, whether or not the contents of those records are exempt from disclosure and shall, when requested to do so, provide in writing within seven days following receipt of a request, a statement as to the existence, quantity, form and nature of records relating to a particular subject or questions with enough specificity to enable a requester to identify records in order to make a request under (b ). A custodian of any public record, when not in possession of the record requested, shall assist a requester in directing a request to the proper office or staff person. (d) If the custodian refuses, fails to comply, or incompletely complies with arequest described in (b ), the person making the request may petition the supervisor ofrecords for a determination whether the record requested is public. The supervisor of records shall inform the petitioner, as soon as possible and within 10 days, of its deterniination whether the record requested, or any part of the record requested, is public. Where requested by the petition, and where otherwise desirable, this determination shall be in writing. Upon the detennination by the supervisor of records that the record is public, the supervisor of records shall immediately order the custodian of the public record to comply with the person's request. If the custodian refuses or fails to comply with any such order within 5 days, the supervisor of records shall notify the district attorney or the attorney general who shall take whatever measures she or he deems necessary and appropriate to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. ( e) If the custodian refuses, fails to comply, or incompletely complies with a request described in (b) above or if a petition is denied or not acted on by the supervisor of public records, the person making the request may petition the Sunshine Task Force for a determination whether the record requested is public. The Sunshine Task Force shall infonn the petitioner, as soon as possible and within 2 days after its next meeting but in no case later than 45 days from when a petition in writing is received, of its determination whether the record requested, or any
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005.docx P667 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 7 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
part of the record requested, is public. Where requested by the petition, and where otherwise desirable, this determination shall be in writing. Upon the determination that the record is public, the Sunshine Task Force shall immediately order the custodian of the public record to comply with the person's request. If the custodian refuses or fails to comply with any such order within 5 days, the Sunshine Task Force shall notify the district attorney or the attorney general who may take whatever measures she or he deems necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. The Board of Supervisors and the City Attorney's office shall provide sufficient staff and resources to allow the Sunshine Task Force to fulfill its duties under this provision. Where requested by the petition, the Sunshine Task Force may conduct a public hearing concerning the records request denial. An authorized representative of the custodian of the public records requested shall attend any hearing and explain the basis for its decision to withhold the records requested. (f) The administrative remedy provided under this article shall in no way limit the availability of other administrative remedies provided to any person with respect to any officer or employee of any agency, executive office, department or board; nor shall the administrative remedy provided by this section in any way limit the availability of judicial remedies otherwise available to any person requesting a public record. If a custodian of a public record refuses or fails to comply with the request of any person for inspection or copy of a public record or with an administrative order under this section, the superior court shall have jurisdiction to order compliance. · · (g) In any court proceeding pursuant to this article there shall be a presumption that the record sought is public, and the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. (h) On at least an annual basis, and as otherwise requested by the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, the supervisor of public records shall prepare a tally and report of every petition brought before it for access to records since the time of its last tally and report. The report shall at least identify for each petition the record or records sought, the custodian of those records, the ruling of the supervisor of public records, whether any ruling was overturned by a court and whether orders given to custodians of public records were followed. The report shall also summarize any court actions during that period regarding petitions the Supervisor has decided. At the request of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, the report shall also include copies of all rulings made by the supervisor of public records and all opinions issued. (i) The San Francisco City Attorney's office shall act to protect and secure the rights of the people of San Francisco to access public information and public meetings and shall not act as legal counsel for any city employee or any person having custody of any public.record for purposes of denying access to the public. The City Attorney may publish legal opinions in response to a request from ariy person as to whether a record or information is public. All communications with the City Attorney's Office with regard to this ordinance, including petitions, requests for opinion, and opinions shall be public records. (j) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the City Attorney may defend the City or a City Employee in litigation under this ordinance that is actually filed in court to any extent required by the City Charter or California Law. '
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005.docx P668 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 8 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office ofthe City Attorney, eta!.
(k) Release of documentary public information, whether for inspection of the original or by providing a copy, shall be governed by the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) in particulars not addressed by this ordinance and in accordance with the enhanced disclosure requirements provided in this ordinance. (1) Inspection and copying of documentary public information stored in electronic form shall be made available to the person requesting the information in any form requested which is available to or easily generated by the department, its officers or employees, including disk, tape, printout or monitor at a charge no greater than the cost of the media on which it is duplicated. Inspection of documentary public information on a computer monitor need not be allowed where the information sought is necessarily and unseparably intertwined with information not subject to disclosure under this ordinance. Nothing in this section shall require a department to program or reprogram a computer to respond to a request for infmmation or to release information where the release of that information would violate a licensing agreement or copyright law. SEC. 67.26. WITHHOLDING KEPT TO A MINIMUM.
No record shall be withheld from disclosure in its entirety unless all information contained in it is exempt from disclosure under express provisions of the California Public Records Act or of some other statute. Information that is exempt from disclosure shall be masked, deleted or otherwise segregated in order that the nonexempt portion of a requested record may be released, and keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the appropriate justification for withholding required by Section 67 .2 7 of this Article. This work shall be done personally by the attorney or other staff member conducting the exemption review. The work of responding to a public records request and preparing documents for disclosure shall be considered part of the regular work duties of any City employee, and no fee shall be charged to the requester to cover the personnel costs of responding to a records request.
SEC. 67.27. JUSTIFICATION OF WITHHOLDING.
Any withholding of inf01mation shall be justified, in writing, as follows:
(a) A withholding under a specific pern1issive exemption in the California Public Records Act, or elsewhere, which pennissive exemption is not forbidden to be asserted by this ordinance, shall cite that authority.
(b) A withholding on the basis that disclosure is prohibited by law shall cite the specific statutory authority in the Public Records Act or elsewhere.
( c) A withholding on the basis that disclosure would incur civil or criminal liability shall cite any specific statutory or case law, or any other public agency's litigation experience, supporting that position.
(d) When a record being requested contains infonnation, most of which is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act and this Article, the custodian shall inform
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241 \01419005 .docx P669 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 9 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
. the requester of the nature and extent of the nonexempt information and suggest alternative sources for the information requested, if available.
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE (CPRA)
SEC. 6253.
(a) Public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency and every, person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law.
(b) Except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, shall make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable. Upon · request, an exact copy shall be provided unless impracticable to do so.
(c) Each agency, upon a request for a copy ofrecords, shall, within 10 days from receipt of the request, determine whether the request, in whole or in part, seeks copies of disclosable public records in the possession of the agency and shall promptly notify the person making the request of the determination and the reasons therefor. In unusual circumstances, .the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by written notice by the head of the agency or his or her designee to the person making the request, setting forth the reasons for the extension and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than 14 days. When the agency dispatches the determination, and if the agency determines that the request seeks disclosable public records, the agency shall state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available. As used in this section, "unusual circumstances" means the following, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of the particular request:
(1) The need to search for and collect the requested records from field facilities or other establishments that are separate from the office processing the request.
(2) The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that are demanded in a single request.
(3) The need for consultation, which shall be conducted with all practicable speed, with another agency having substantial interest in the determination of the request or among two or more components of the agency having substantial subject matter interest therein.
( 4) The need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data. (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. The notification of denial of any request for records
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005 .docx P670 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 10 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
required by Section 6255 shall set forth the naµies and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial.
(e) Except as otherwise prohibited by law, a state or local agency may adopt requirements for itself that allow for faster, more efficient, or greater access to records than prescribed by the minimum standards set forth in this chapter.
(f) In addition to maintaining public records for public inspection during the office hours of the ·public agency, a public agency may comply with subdivision (a) by posting any public record on its Internet Web site and, in response to a request for a public record posted on the Internet Web site, directing a member of the public to the location on the Internet Web site where the public record is posted. However, if after the public agency directs a member of the public to the Internet Web site, the member of the public requesting the public record requests a copy of the public record due to an inability to access or reproduce the public record from the Internet Web site, the public agency shall promptly provide a copy of the public record pursuant to subdivision (b).
Sec. 6254
Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, this chapter does not require the disclosure of any of the following records:
(a) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency memoranda that are not retained by the public agency in the ordinary course of business, if the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.
(b) Records pertaining to pending litigation to which the public agency is a party, or to claims made pursuant to Division 3.6 (commencing with Section 810), until the pending litigation or claim has been finally adjudicated or otherwise settled.
( c) Personnel, medical, or similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(d) Records contained in or related to any of the following:
(1) Applications filed with any state agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of the issuance of securities or of financial institutions, including, but not limited to, banks, savings and loan associations, industrial loan companies, credit unions, and insurance companies.
(2) Examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, any state agency referred to in paragraph (1).
(3) Preliminary drafts, notes, or interagency or intra-agency communications prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of, any state agency referred to in paragraph (1 ).
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005.docx P671 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 11 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
( 4) Information received in confidence by any state agency referred to in paragraph (1).
( e) Geological and geophysical data, plant production data, and similar information relating to utility systems development, or market or crop reports, that are obtained in confidence from any person.
(f) Records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. However, state and local law enforcementagencies shall disclose the names and addresses of persons involved in, or witnesses other than confidential informants to, the incident, the description of any property involved, the date, time, and location of the incident, all diagrams, statements of the parties involved in the incident, the statements of all witnesses, other than confidential informants, to the victims of an incident, or an authorized representative thereof, an insurance carrier against which a claim has been or might be made, and any person suffering bodily injury or property damage or loss, as the result of the incident caused by arson, burglary, fire, explosion, larceny, robbery, cmjacking, vandalism, vehicle theft, or a crime as defined by subdivision (b) of Section 13951, unless the disclosure would endanger the safety of a witness or other person involved in the investigation, or unless disclosure would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation. However, this subdivision does not require the disclosure of that portion of those investigative files that reflects the analysis or conclusions of the investigating officer.
Customer lists provided to a state or local police agency by an alarm or security company at the request of the agency shall be construed to be records subject to this subdivision.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, state and local law enforcement . agencies shall make public the following information, except to the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation: ·
(1) The full name and occupation of every individual arrested by the agency, the individual's physical description including date of birth, color of eyes and hair, sex, height and weight, the time and date of arrest, the time and date of booking, the location of the arrest, the factual circumstances surrounding the arrest, the amount of bail set, the time and manner of release or the location where the individual is currently being held, and all charges the individual is being held upon, including any outstanding warrants from other jurisdictions and parole or probation holds. ·
(2) (A) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the time, substance, and location of all complaints or requests for assistance received by the agency and the time and nature of the response thereto, including, to the extent the information regarding crimes alleged or committed or any other incident investigated is recorded, the time, date, and
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005 .docx P672 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 12 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
location of occurrence, the time and date of the report, the name and age of the victim, the factual circumstances surrounding the crime or incident, and a general description of any injuries, property, or weapons involved. The name of a victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.l, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 of the Penal Code may be withheld at the victim's request, or at the request of the victim's parent or guardian ifthe victim is a minor. When a person is the victim of more than one crime, information disclosing that the person is a victim of a crime defined in any of the sections of the Penal Code set forth in this subdivision may be deleted at the request of the victim, or the victim's parent or guardian if the victim is a minor, in making the report of the crime, or of any crime or incident accompanying the crime, available to the public in compliance with the · requirements of this paragraph.
(B) Subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 841.5 of the Penal Code, the names and images of a victim of human trafficking, as defined in Section 236.l of the Penal Code, and of that victim's immediate family, other than a family member who is charged with a criminal offense arising from the same incident, may be withheld at the victim's request until the investigation or any subsequent prosecution is complete. For purposes of this subdivision, "immediate family" shall have the same meaning as that provided in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 422.4 of the Penal Code.
(3) Subject to the restrictions of Section 841 .. 5 of the Penal Code and this subdivision, the current address of every individual arrested by the agency and the current address of the victim of a crime, if the requester declares under penalty of perjury that the request is made for a scholarly, journalistic, political, or governmental purpose, or that the request is made for investigation purposes by a licensed private investigator as described in Chapter 11.3 (commencing with Section 7512) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code. However, the address of the victim of any crime defined by Section 220, 236.l, 261, 261.5, 262, 264, 264.1, 265, 266, 266a, 266b, 266c, 266e, 266f, 266j, 267, 269, 273a, 273d, 273.5, 285, 286, 288, 288a, 288.2, 288.3, 288.4, 288.5, 288.7, 289, 422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 646.9, or 647.6 ofthe Penal Code shall remain confidential. Address information obtained pursuant to this paragraph shall not be used directly or indirectly, or furnished to another, to sell a product or service to any individual or group of individuals, and the requester shall execute a declaration to that effect under penalty of perjury. This paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit or limit a scholarly, journalistic, political, or government use of address info1mation obtained pursuant to this paragraph.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subdivision, commencing July 1, 2019, a video or audio recording that relates to a critical incident, as defined in subparagraph (C), may be withheld only as follows:
(A) (i) During an active criminal or administrative investigation, disclosure of a recording related to a critical incident may be delayed for no longer than 45 calendar days after the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, if, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, such as by endangering the safety of a witness or a confidential source. If an
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005.docx P673 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 13 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
agency delays disclosure pursuant to this paragraph, the agency shall provide ill writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency's determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation and the estimated date for disclosure.
(ii) After 45 days from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, and up to one year from that date, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording if the agency demonsfrates that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. After one year from the date the agency knew or reasonably should have known about the incident, the agency may continue to delay disclosure of a recording only if the agency demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation. If an agency delays disclosure pursuant to this clause, the agency shall promptly provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the agency's determination that the interest in preventing interference with an active investigation outweighs the public interest in disclosure and provide the estimated date for the disclosure. The agency shall reassess withholding and notify the requester every 30 days. A recording withheld by the agency shall be disclosed promptly when the specific basis for withholding is resolved.
(B) (i) If the agency demonstrates, on the facts of the particular case, that the public interest in withholding a video or audio recording clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure ·because the release of the recording would, based on the facts and circumstances depicted in the recording, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific basis for the expectation of privacy and the public interest served by withholding the recording and may use redaction technology, including blurring or distorting images or audio, to obscure those specific portions of the recording that protect that interest. However, the redaction shall not interfere with the viewer's ability to fully, completely, and accurately comprehend the events captured in the recording and the recording shall not otherwise be edited or altered.
(ii) Except as provided in clause (iii), if the agency demonstrates that the reasonable expectation of privacy of a subject depicted in the recording cannot adequately be protected through redaction as described in clause (i) and that interest outweighs the public interest in disclosure, the agency may withhold the recording from the public, except that the recording, either redacted as provided in clause (i) or unredacted, shall be disclosed promptly, upon request, to any of the following:
(I) The subject of the recording whose privacy is to be protected, or their authorized representative. · (II) If the subject is a minor, the parent or legal guardian of the subject whose privacy is to be protected. (III) 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.
(iii) If disclosure pursuant to clause (ii) would substantially interfere with an active criminal or administrative investigation, the agency shall provide in writing to the requester the specific
n:\c~denf\as2019\9600241\01419005 .docx P674 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 14 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
basis for the agency's determination that disclosure would substantially interfere with the investigation, and provide the estimated date for the disclosure of the video or audio recording. Thereafter, the recording may be withheld by the agency for 45 calendar days, subject to extensions as set forth in clause (ii) of subparagraph (A).
( C) For purposes of this paragraph, a video or audio recording relates to a critical incident if it depicts any of the following incidents:
(i) An incident involving the discharge of a firearm at a person by a peace officer or custodial officer.
(ii) An incident in which the use of force by a peace officer or custodial officer against a person resulted in death or in great bodily injury.
(D) An agency may provide greater public access to video or audio recordings than the minimum standards set forth in this paragraph.
(E) Th1s paragraph does not alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or obligations with respect to public records regarding an incident other than a critical incident as .described in subparagraph (C).
(F) For purposes of this paragraph, a peace officer does not include any peace officer employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
(g) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a licensing examination, examination for employment, or academic examination, except as provided for in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 99150) of Part 65 of Division 14 of Title 3 of the Education Code.
(h) The contents of real estate appraisals or engineering or feasibility estimates and evaluations made for or by the state or local agency relative to the acquisition of property, or to prospective public supply and construction contracts, until all of the property has been acquired or all of the cont~a~t agreement obtained. However, the law of eminent domain shall not be affected by this prov1s10n.
(i) Information required from any taxpayer in connection with the collection of local taxes that is received in confidence and the disclosure of the information to other persons would result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the person supplying the information.
G) Library circulation records kept for the purpose of identifying the borrower of items available in libraries, and library and museum materials made or acquired and presented solely for reference or exhibition purposes. The exemption in this subdivision shall not apply to records of fines imposed on the b01rowers.
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005.docx P675 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 15 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
(k) Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.
(1) Correspondence of and to the Governor or employees of the Governor's office or in the custody of or maintained by the Governor's Legal Affairs Secretary. However, public records shall not be transferred to the custody of the Governor's Legal Affairs Secretary to evade the disclosure provisions of this chapter.
(m) In the custody of or maintained by the Legislative c·ounsel, except those records in the public database maintained by the Legislative Counsel that are described in Section 10248.
(n) Statements of personal worth or personal financial data required by a licensing agency and filed by an applicant with the licensing agency to establish their personal qualification for the license, certificate, or permit applied for.
(o) Financial data contained in applications for financing under Division 27 (commencing with Section 44500) of the Health and Safety Code, if an authorized officer of the California Pollution Control Financing Authority determines that disclosure of the financial data would be competitively injurious to the applicant and the data is required in order to obtain guarantees from the United States Small Business Administration. The California Pollution Control Financing Authority shall adopt rules for review of individual requests for confidentiality under this section and for making available to the public those portions of an application that are subject to disclosure under this chapter.
(p) (1) Records of state agencies related to activities governed by Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 3512), Chapter 10.5 (commencing with Section 3525), and Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 3560) of Division 4, and Article 19.5 (commencing withSection · 8430) of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code, that reveal a state agency's deliberative processes, impressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work products, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees who do not have full collective bargaining and representation rights under these chapters. This paragraph shall not be construed to limit the disclosure duties of a state agency with respect to any other records relating to the activities governed by the employee relations acts referred to in this paragraph.
(2) Records of local agencies related to activities governed by Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 3500) of Division 4, that reveal a local agency's deliberative processes, i:t,npressions, evaluations, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work products, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees who do not have full collective bargaining and representation rights under that chapter. This paragraph shall not be construed to limit the disclosure duties of a local agency with respect to any other records relating to the activities governed by the employee relations act referred to in this paragraph.
(q) (1) Records of state agencies related to activities governed by Article 2.6 (cornmencing with Section 14081), Article 2.8 (commencing with Section 14087.5), and Atticle 2.91 (commencing
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005 .docx P676 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 16 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
with Section 14089) of Chapter 7 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, that reveal the special negotiator's deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with providers of health care services, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy, or that provide instruction, advice, or training to employees.
(2) Except for the portion of a contract containing the rates of payment, contracts for inpatient services entered into pursuant to these articles, on or after April 1, 1984, shall be open to inspection one year after they are fully executed. If a contract for inpatient services that is entered into prior to April 1, 1984, is amended on or after April 1, 1984, the amendment, except for any portion containing the rates of payment, shall be open to inspection one year after it is fully executed. If the California Medical Assistance Commission enters into contracts with health care providers for other than inpatient hospital services, those contracts shall be open to inspection one year after they are fully executed. ·
(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection under this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.
(4) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendment shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and the Legislative Analyst's Office. The committee and that office shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments until the time a contract or amendment is fully open to inspection by the public. ·
(r) Records of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code maintained by, or in the possession of, the Native American Heritage Commission, another state agency, or a local agency. ·
(s) A final accreditation report of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals that has been transmitted to the State Department of Health Care Services pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1282 of the Health and Safety Code.
(t) Records of a local hospital district, formed pursuant to Division 23 (commencing with Section 32000) of the Health and Safety Code, or the records of a municipal hospital, formed pursuant to Article 7 (commencing with Section 37600) or Article 8 (commencing with Section 37650) of Chapter 5 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4 of this code, that relate to any contract with an insurer or nonprofit hospital service plan for inpatient or outpatient services for alternative rates pursuant to Section 10133 of the Insurance Code. However, the record shall be open to inspection within one year after the contract is fully executed.
(u) (1) Information contained in applications for licenses to can-y firearms issued pursuant to Section26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department that indicates when or where the applicant is vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant's medical or psychological history or that of members of their family.
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005.docx P677 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 17 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
(2) The home address and telephone riumber of prosecutors, public defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in applications for licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, 26170; or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department.
(3) The home address and telephone number of prosecutors, public defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in licenses to carry firearms issued pursuant to Section 26150, 26155, 26170, or 26215 of the Penal Code by the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head ofa municipal police department.
(v) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board and the State Department of Health Care Services related to activities governed by former Part 6.3 (commencing with Section 12695), former Part 6.5 (commencing with Section 12700), Part 6.6 (commencing with Section 12739.5), or Part 6.7 (commencing with Section 12739.70) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, or Chapter 2 (commencingwith Section 15810) or Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 15870) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, and that reveal any of the following:
(A) The deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board or thedepartment, entities with which the board or the department is considering a contract, or entities with which the board or department is considering or enters into any other arrangement under which the board or the department provides, receives, or arranges services or reimbursement.
(B) The impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff or the department or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to their employees.
(2) (A) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to former Part 6.3 (commencing with Section 12695), former Part 6.5 (commencing with Section 12700), Part 6.6 (commencing with Section 12739.5), or Part 6.7 (commencing with Section 12739.70) ofDiv~sion 2 of the Insurance Code, or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 15810) or Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 15870) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, oil or after July 1, 1991, shall be open to inspection one year after their effective dates.
(B) If a contract that is entered into prior to July 1, 1991, is amended on or after July 1, 1991, the amendment, except for any portion containing the rates of payment, shall be open to inspection one year after the effective date of the amendment. (3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection,.
(4) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005 .docx P678 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance .Task Force DATE:· January 13, 2020 PAGE: 18 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto, until the contracts or amendments to the contracts are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (3).
(w) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board related to activities governed by Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 10700) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, and that reveal the deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with health plans, or the impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting niinutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.
(2) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts for health coverage entered into pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 10700) of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, on or after January 1, 1993, shall be open to inspection one year after they have been fully executed.
(3) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto, until the contracts or amendments to the contracts are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (2). ·
(x) Financial data contained in applications for registration, or registration renewal, as a service contractor filed with the Director of Consumer Affairs pursuant to Chapter 20 (commencing with Section 9800) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, for the purpose of establishing the service contractor's net worth, or financial data regarding the funded accounts held in escrow for service contracts held in force in this state by a service contractor.
(y) (1) Records of the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board and the State Department of Health Care Services related to activities governed by Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or former Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Insurance Code or Sections 14005.26 and 14005.27 of, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, ifthe records reveal any of the following:
(A) The deliberative processes, discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the board or the department, entities with which the board or department is considering a contract, or entities with which the board or department is considering or enters into any other arrangement under which the board or department provides, receives, or arranges services or reimbursement.
(B) The impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or the department or its staff, or records that provide instructions, advice, or training to employees.
(2) (A) Except for the portion of a contract that contains the rates of payment, contracts entered into pursuant to Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or former Part 6.4 (commencing with
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005 .docx P679 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 0FF1CE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 19 . RE· Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Jnsurance Code, on or after January 1, 1998, or Sections 14005.26 and 14005.27 of, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code shall be open to inspection one year after their effective dates.
(B) If a contract entered into pursuant to Part 6.2 (commencing with Section 12693) or former Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50) of Division 2 of the Jnsurance Code or Sections 14005.26 and 14005.27 of, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of · Division 9 of, the Welfare and Institutions Code, is amended, the amendment shall be open to inspection one year after the effective date of the amendment.
(3) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to . inspection.
(4) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto until the contract or amendments to a contract are open to inspection pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3).
· (5) The exemption from disclosure provided pursuant to this subdivision for the contracts, deliberative processes, discussions, communications, negotiations, impressions, opinions, . recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the board or its staff, or the department or its staff, shall also apply to the contracts, deliberative processes, discussions, communications, negotiations, impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes, research, work product, theories, or strategy of applicants pursuant to former Part 6.4 (commencing with Section 12699.50}ofDivision 2 ofthe Jnsurance Code or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 15850) of Part 3.3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(z) Records obtained pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 2891.1 of the Public Utilities Code.
(aa) A document prepared by or for a state or local agency that assesses its vulnerability to terrorist attack or other criminal acts intended to disrupt the public agency's operations and that is for distribution or consideration in a closed session.
(ab) Critical infrastructure information, as defined in Section 131 (3) of Title 6 of the United States Code, that is voluntarily submitted to the Office of Emergency Services for use by that office, including the identity of the person who or entity that voluntarily submitted the information. As used in this subdivision, "voluntarily submitted" means submitted in the absence of the office exercising any legal authority to compel access to or submission of critical infrastructure information. This subdivision shall not affect the status of information ill the possession of any other state or local governmental agency.
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005.docx P680 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 20 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
( ac) All information provided to the Secretary of State by a person for the purpose of registration in the Advance Health Care Directive Registry, except that those records shall be released at the request of a health care provider, a public guardian, or the registrant's legal representative.
(ad) The following records of the State Compensation Insurance Fund:
(1) Records related to claims pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 3200) of Division 4 of the Labor Code, to the extent that confidential medical information or other individually identifiable information would be disclosed.
(2) Records related to the discussions, communications, or any other portion of the negotiations with entities contracting or seeking to contract with the fund, and any related deliberations.
(3) Records related to the impressions, opinions, recommendations, meeting minutes of meetings or sessions that are lawfully closed to the public, research, work product, theories, or strategy of the fond or its staff, on the development of rates, contracting strategy, underwriting, or competitive strategy pursuant to the powers granted to the fund in Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code. ·
(4) Records obtained to provide workers' compensation insurance under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code, including, but not limited to, any medical claims information, policyholder information provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted to prevent an insurance agent or broker from obtaining proprietary information or other information authorized by law to be obtained by the agent or broker, and information on rates, pricing, and claims handling received from brokers.
(5) (A) Records that are trade secrets pursuant to Section 6276.44, or Article 11 (commencing with Section 1060) of Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code, including, without limitation, instructions, advice, or training provided by the State Compensation Insurance Fund to its board members, officers, and employees regarding the fund's special investigation unit, internal audit unit, and informational security, marketing, rating, pricing, underwriting, claims handling, audits, and collections.
(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the portions of records containing trade secrets shall be available for review by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, California State Auditor's Office, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Department of Insurance to ensure compliance with applicable law.
( 6) (A) Internal audits containing proprietary information and the following records that are related to an internal audit: (i) Personal papers and correspondence of any person providing assistance to the fund when that person has requested in writing that their papers and correspondence be kept private and confidential. Those papers and correspondence shall become public records if the written request is withdrawn, or upon order of the fund.
n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005 .docx P681 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL
TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 21 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al.
(ii) Papers, correspondence, memoranda, or any substantive infonnation pertaining to any audit not completed or an internal audit that contains proprietary information.
(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the portions ofrecords containing proprietary information, or any information specified in subparagraph (A) shall be available for review by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, California State Auditor's Office, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Department ofinsurance to ensure compliance with applicable law.
(7) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), contracts entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code shall be open to inspection one year after the contract has been fully executed.
(B) If a contract entered into pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 11770) of Part 3 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code is amended, the amendment shall be open to inspection one year after the amendment has been fully executed.
(C) Three years after a contract or amendment is open to inspection pursuant to this subdivision, the portion of the contract or amendment containing the rates of payment shall be open to inspection.
(D) Notwithstanding any other law, the entire contract or amendments to a contract shall be open to inspection by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The committee shall maintain the confidentiality of the contracts and amendments thereto until the contract or amendments to a contract are open to inspection pursuant to this paragraph.
(E) This paragraph is not intended to apply to documents related to contracts with public entities that are not otherwise expressly confidential as to that public entity.
(F) For purposes of this paragraph, "fully executed" means the point in time when all of the necessary parties to the contract have signed the contract.
This section does not prevent any agency from opening its records concerning the administration of the agency to public inspection, unless disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law.
This section does not prevent any health facility from disclosing to a certified bargaining agent relevant financing information pursuant to Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 158).
n:lcodenf\as201919600241101419005 .docx P682 Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Summary File No. 19120
Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney
Date filed with SOTF: 11/13/2019
Contacts information (Complainant information listed first):
Anonymous [email protected] (Complainant)
Dennis Herrera, Moira Walsh, Jana Clark, Wayne Snodgrass, Andrew Shen, Joshua White, Brad Russi, David Ries, Alicia Cabrera, Paul Zarefsky, Buck Delventhal, Scott Minty, Joy Perez, J. Givner, Elizabeth Coolbrith, Odaya, Buta (Office of the City Attorney) (Respondents)
_File No. 19120: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .21 (b )( c), 67 .26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner; failing to justify withholding of records and failing to provide assistance.
Administrative Summary if applicable:
Complaint Attached.
P683 . . Co plainant/Petitioners ocuments Sub ission
. \
/ .
P684 Youn , Victor (BOS)
From: Anonymous
SOTF - ONLY FOR FILES 19120 AND 20006
Here are the agencies that have so far responded to our BCC email audit, producing emails in formats that show the BCC identities:
Environment: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/11/Green Film Production - an introduction Redacted .. pdf Status of Women: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/10/EMurase BCC 4.pdf Technology: https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/documents/3928448 Fire: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia filesj2020/02/11/02.11.2020- Muckruck response.pdf Entertainment: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/11/Muckrock PRR Response 2 11 2020.pdf Port: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/11/Navigation Center lawsuit update.pdf
As usual, the offices of London Breed and Dennis Herrera stand against sunshine in producing emails using the Outlook Memo Style view which makes it impossible to even know whether or not BCCs existed.
NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
------Original Message------On Monday, February 10, 2020 6:06 PM, Anonymous
This is how you do it properly (except for email headers): https://cd n.m uckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/10/EM u rase BCC 3. pdf
Status of. Women provided the PDFMaker PDF, and specifically removed only those specific hyperlinks that exposed private email addresses (and justified them in their cover letter). Note how even with those redactions, the other email addresses (try hovering your mouse), other hyperlinks, BCC identities, and the attachment were preseNed. Sometimes when your agencies remove one hyperlink you use a setting that destroys all hyperlinks including email addresses for unknown reasons.
P~85 NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, o.r any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.use attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
------Original Message ------On Saturday, February 8, 2020 10:56 AM, Anonymous
To the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force [for all file numbers listed in subject],
CC: Mayor for 20006, City Attorney for 19044 and 19120, SFPD for 19098, DPW for 19097, DT for technical awareness & 19119 CC: Supervisor of Records: I will be refiling every SFAC 67.21(d) petition that you incorrectly denied for every email with BCC recipients for the reasons below.
SOTF, you recently ruled in SOTF 19044 that full email headers are at least partially disclosable and must be minimally withheld and justified. We await the order so that Mr. Herrera's office will produce the 2 emails correctly. However the problem with how the City produces email records goes beyond merely email headers. I ask that this letter be analyzed by the SOTF DCA in any complaints listed above not yet ruled upon.
We have recently discovered that one of the City's mechanism of producing PDFs· from Outlook emails is unlawfully withholding even the names of recipients of emails, when those recipients are in the BCC (Blind Carbon Copy). This mechanism is known as Outlook's "Memo Style" and is widely used· by City agencies in producing emails.
You have been told by certain City respondents that, by providing the PDF printouts of emails, they are in fact providing everything that is usually visible in Outlook and/or typed in by a City employee. Similar arguments were made by the Supervisor of Records. They are all wrong, at least when using Memo Style. The PDF printout includes less than even the Outlook view because the BCCs are hidden from the PDF: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/print-emails showing-bcc-recipients-a80e4965-3b8d-41bf-ba22-722f3b19f95c "There is no way to print an email message directly within Outlook that shows recipients included in the Bee (blind carbon copy) field."
When City employees send emails with BCC's, the identity of those recipients is no less public Information than the identity of To and CC recipients.
P£fB6 The identity of BCC recipients is not an information security record. The BCC nameswere typed in by a City employee and are not computer-generated metadata. The BCC names are visible on the Outlook screen. The BCC names can only be produced by the sender of the record as that is the only account that retains the BCC (Recipients and certain intermediate servers cannot see and do not retain the BCC). All of the City's justifications, GC 6254.19 and 6253.9(f), are false and inapplicable.
We have now found an example of this. The Mayor's Office produced the following emails by printing them to PDF via Outlook: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /LaRoe Forward.pdf, https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /Aponte Request.pdf, https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /Glen Smith Forward.pdf Each of those records, as the Mayor's Office has admitted, included BCC recipients and were sent of course by the Mayor's Office. But due to the City's choice of production, the BCC identities have been unlawfully withheld from the record produced to the public. Mr. Heckel is working on producing these records correctly, but our concern is not merely these 3 emails.
We, your Task Force, and the general public cannot even know which emails have unlawfully had their BCC identities withheld.
We are now re-auditing ~40 agencies regarding whether any of their mis produced PDF emails have any BCC's not produced to us. If an agency refuses to respond or continues to withhold BCC identities as exempt falsely under Gov Code 6254.19 or 6253.9(f), we will add willfulviolation allegations. The City, even if not specifically asked for headers or still refusing to produce them in contradiction to SOTF 19044, must use at least the "PDFMaker" form of PDF creation (as some agencies already do) which appears to preserve the BCC identities - they must do this for every request for email, not just mine, if any of those emails have BCCs. I will be verifying the City's correct production for all other persons as well; if they have failed, I will find out whether those requestors know that information was withheld from them.
There is no lawful authority to withhold the names of the BCC-ed recipients and to not even inform requesters that the BCC was withheld. In doing so, the City is claiming a right to keep secret not just the headers themselves but identities of government officials in communications and even the existence of secret communications.
Any agency that produces a BCC-ed email in Memo Style form has violated SFAC 67.26 and q7.27: non-exempt parts of records were withheld, non-minimally, and the meta data exemption justifications given have no relevancy to the BCC identities.
NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author · disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable
P~87 for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
rffss Youn , Victor (BOS)
From: Anonymous < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 6:07 PM To: SOTF, (BOS); Records, Supervisor (CAT) Cc: Cityattorney; MayorSunshineRequests, MYR (MYR); Gerull, Linda (TIS); Steinberg, David (DPW); Cox, Andrew (POL) Subject: Re: City is hiding BCC email recipients from the public - SOTF 19044, 20006, 19097, 19098, 19113, 19120, 19119 Attachments: signature.asc
This is how you do it properly (except for email headers): https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/10/EMurase BCC 3.pdf
Status of Women provided the PDFMaker PDF, and specifically removed only those specific hyperlinks that exposed private email addresses (and justified them in their cover letter). Note how even with those redactions, the other email addresses (try hovering your mouse), other hyperlinks, BCC identities, and the attachment were preserved. Sometimes when your agencies remove one hyperlink you use a setting that destroys all hyperlinks including email addresses for unknown reasons. .
NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature~asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communicatiOns with the government all be disclosable public records.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
------Original Message------On Saturday, February 8, 2020 10:56 AM, Anonymous
To the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force [for all file numbers listed in subject],
CC: Mayor for 20006, City Attorney for 19044 and 19120, SFPD for 19098, DPW for 19097, DT for technical awareness & 19119 CC: Supervisor of Records: I will be refiling every SFAC 67.21(d) petition that you incorrectly denied for every email with BCC recipients for the reasons below.
SOTF, you recently ruled in SOTF 19044 that full email headers are at least partially disclosable and must be minimally withheld and justified. We await the order so that Mr. Herrera's offic'e will produce the 2 emails correctly. However the problem with how the City produces email records goes beyond merely email headers. I ask that this letter be analyzed by the SOTF DCA in any corn plaints listed above not yet ruled upon.
PS89 We have recently discovered that one of the City's mechanism of producing PDFs from Outlook emails is unlawfully withholding even the names of recipients of emails, when those recipients are in the BCC {Blind Carbon Copy). This mechanism is known as Outlook's "Memo Style" and is widely used by City agencies in producing emails.
You have been told by certain City respondents that, by providing the PDF printouts of emails, they are in fact providing everything that is usually visible in Outlook and/or typed in by a City employee. Similar arguments were made by the Supervisor of Records. They are all wrong, at least when using Memo Style. The PDF printout indudes less than even the Outlook view because the BCCs are hidden from the PDF: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/print-emails-showing-bcc-recipients a80e4965-3b8d-41bf-ba22-722f3b19f95c "There is no way to print an email message directly within Outlook that shows recipients included in the Bee (blind carbon copy) field."
When City employees send emails with BCC's, the identity of those recipients is no less public information than the identity of To and CC recipients. · The identity of BCC recipients is not an information security record. The BCC names were typed in by a City employee and .are not computer-generated metadata. The BCC names are visible on the Outlook screen. The BCC names can only be produced by the sender of the record as that is the only account that retains the HCC {Recipients and certain intermediate servers cannot see and do not retain the BCC). All of the City's justifications, GC 6254.19 and 6253.9{f), are false and inapplicable.
We have now found an example of this. The Mayor's Office produced the following emails by printing them to PDF via . Outlook: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /LaRoe Forward.pdf '· https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /Aponte Request.pdf, https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /Glen Smith Forward.pdf Each of those records, as the Mayor's Office has admitted, included BCC recipients and were sent of course by the Mayor's Office. But due to the City's choice of production, the BCC identities have been unlawfully withheld from the record produced to the public~ Mr. Heckel is working on producing these records correctly, but our concern is not merely these 3 emails.
We, your Task Force, and the general public cannot even know which emails have unlawfully had their BCC identities withheld.
We are now re-auditing ~40 agencies regarding whether any of their mis-produced PDF emails have any BCC's not produced to us. If an agency refuses to respond or continues to withhold BCC identities as exempt falsely under Gov Code 6254.19 or 6253.9{f), we will add willful violation allegations. The City, even if not specifically asked for headers or still refusing to produce them in contradiction to SOTF 19044, must use at least the "PDFMaker" form of PDF creation (as some agencies already do) which appears to preserve the BCC identities - they must do this for every request for email, not just mine, if any of those emails have BCCs. I will be verifying the City's correct production for all other persons as well; if they have failed, I will find out wheth_er those requesters know that information was withheld from them.
Pff90 There is no lawful authority to withhold the names of the BCC-ed recipients and to not even inform requestors that the BCC was withheld. In doing so, the City is Claiming a right to keep secret not just the headers themselves but identities of government officials in communications and even the existence of secret communications.
Any agency that produces a BCC-ed email in Memo Style form has violated SFAC 67.26 and 67.27: non-exempt parts of records were withheld, non-minimally, and the metadata exemption justifications given have no relevancy to the BCC identities.
NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, con$equential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosab/e public records.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
PS91 Young, Victor (BOS)
From: Anonymous
To the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force [for all file numbers listed in subject],
CC: Mayor for 20006, City Attorney for 19044 and 19120, SFPD for 19098, DPW for 19097, DT for technical awareness & 19119 CC: Supervisor of Records: I will be refiling every SFAC 67.21(d) petition that you incorrectly denied for every email with BCC recipients for the reasons below.
SOTF, you recently ruled in SOTF 19044 that full email headers are at least partially disclosable and must be minimally withheld and justified. We await the order so that Mr. Herrera's office will produce the 2 emails correctly. However the problem with how the City produces email records goes beyond merely email headers. I ask that this letter be analyzed by the SOTF DCA in any complaints listed above not yet ruled upon.
We have recently discovered that one of the City's mechanism of producing PDFs from Outlook emails is unlawfully withholding even the names of recipients of emails, when those recipients are in the BCC (Blind Carbon Copy). This mechanism is known as Outlook's "Memo Style" and is widely used by City agencies in producing emails.
You have been told by certain City respondents that, by providing the PDF printouts of emails, they are in fact providing everything that is usually visible in Outlook and/or typed in by a City employee. Similar arguments were made by the Supervisor of Records. They are all wrong, at least when using Memo Style. The PDF printout includes less than even the Outlook view because the BCCs are hidden from the PDF: https://su ppo rt.office .com/en-us/ articl e/p rint-ema i ls-showing-bcc-reci p ients-a80e4965-3 b8d-41bf-ba22- 722f3b 19f95c "There is n() way to print an email message directly within Outlook that shows recipients included in the Bee (blind carbon copy) field."
When City employees send emails with BCC's, the identity of those recipients is no less public information than the identity of To and CC recipients. . The identity of BCC recipients is not an information security record. The BCC names were typed in by a City employee and are not computer-generated metadata. The BCC names are visible on the Outlook screen. The BCC names can only be produced by the sender of the record as that is the only account that.retains the BCC (Recipients and certain intermediate servers cannot see and do not retain the BCC). All of the City's justifications, GC 6254.19 and 6253.9(f), are false and inapplicable.
We have now found an example of this. The Mayor's Office produced the following emails by printing them to PDF via Outlook: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /LaRoe Forward.pdf,
PS92 https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /Aponte Request.pdf / . https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /Glen Smith Forward.pdf
Each of those records1 as the Mayor's Office has admitted1 included BCC recipients and were sent of course by the Mayor's Office. But due to the City's choice of production 1 the BCC identities have been unlawfully withheld from the record produced to the public. Mr .. Heckel is working on producing these records correctly1 but our concern is not merely these 3 emails.
We 1 your Task Force 1 and the general public cannot even know which emails have unlawfully had their BCC identities withheld.
We are now re-auditing ~40 agencies regarding whether any of their mis-produced PDF emails have any BCC's not produced to us. If an agency refuses to respond or continues to withhold BCC identities as exempt falsely
under Gov Code 6254.19 or 6253.9{fL we will add willful violation allegations. The City1 even if not specifically
asked for headers or still refusing to produce them in contradiction to SOTF 190441 must use at least the "PDFMaker" form of PDF creation {as some agencies already do) which appears to preserve the BCC identities - they must do this for every request for email, not just mine, if any of those emails have BCCs. will be verifying the City's correct production for all other persons as well; if they have failed, I will find out whether those requesters know that information was withheld from them ..
There is no lawful authority to withhold the names of the BCC-ed recipients and to not even inform requestors that the BCC was withheld. In doing so1 the City is claiming a right to keep secret hot just the headers themselves but identities of government officials in communications and even the exi~tence of secret communications.
Any agency that produces a BCC-ed email in Memo Style form has violated SFAC 67.26 and 67.27: non-exempt
parts of records were withheld1 non-minimally1 and the metadata exemption justifications given have nq relevancy to the BCC identities.
NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.
Sincerely1
Anonymous
pif93 Leger, Cheryl (BOS)
From: Anonymous
I see. I believe the are required to send you the response. I will raise this at Committee.
NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do.not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
------Original Message------On Thursday, January 30, 2020 2:56 PM, SOTF, (BOS)
Dear Anonymous: I have not received the 2171 page response.
Cheryl Leger
From: Anonymous
Ms. Leger,
Can the Respondents provide the 2171 pg response directly to you on a thumbdrive if they have not done so? It is too large for me to send.
PS94 The parts of that document that need to be in the File are:
1. pl-517,
2. p1220-1640,
3. p1904-2171
The rest of it is just board of supervisors agendas, election ballots, and such, and will not be in dispute.
NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend thc:tt these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
PS95 Leger, Cheryl (BOS)
From: Anonymous < [email protected] > Sent: Friday, January 17, 2020 4:20 PM To: SOTF, (BOS); Cityattorney Subject: SOTF 19120 - Reply for the file Attachments: signature.asc
My 19120 Reply:
Until the City Attorney's office fully submits to the Sunshine Ordinance's requirements to justify all withholdings of information (67 .27) and provides all deletions, maskings, or segregations keyed by footnote or other clear reference as required by law (67.26), no complaints will be withdrawn. They have not done so here for all redactions, and they have violated the law.
Genuine difference of interpretation in what the law exempts is acceptable: th.at's what the meta data, calendar, etc. complaints are for. Not following the basic, undisputed, Sunshine ordinance procedures, counting on the fact that most of the public will just accept the government's unlawful actions (because they do not know their rights), is unacceptable. Complaints will be filed until the City Attorney follows SFAC 67.26 and gives, within their response, during the exemption review, either footnotes or other clear references, to a justification to each and every requestor prior to appeals and complaints. I want nothing less than a change in Respondents' records procedures and I will continue fighting for that.
I know, personally, how to add a "code" (like a statute section) to redactions using Adobe Acrobat; surely an office who has a legal responsibility to do this can bring their employees up to speed. DPW, FAM SF, DT, and many others have done this since my first request to them, without fUrther whining. The Federal government has done this for FO.IA requests for many years and FOIA is much weaker than the Sunshine Ordinance. We have gotten the Mayor's Office, SFPD, and other wayward agencies to submit to SFAC 67.26.
Why is the City Attorney above the law? This is the office which exists to protect public access throughout the City and their own Sunshine falls far short. How can the City trust that its advice to anyone else is correct?
On the day the City Attorney's office complies, not just protecting our rights but every other member of the public's as well; we will stop bringing complaints.
NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
P6196 IN THE SAN FRANCISCO SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE
Anonymous v. Reply to Response City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Moira Walsh, Jana Clark, Wayne Snodgrass, Dec. 22, 2019 Andrew Shen, Joshua White, Brad Russi, David Ries, Alicia Cabrera, Paul Zarefsky, SOTFNo. Scott Minty, Joy Perez, Jon Givner, Elizabeth Coolbrith, Odaya Buta, and the 19120 Office of the City Attorney
DEC. 22, 2019 REPLY TO RESPONDENTS' RESPONSE1
This complaint arises out of a request sent during business hours on Sept. 20 for records related to Jeff Adachi and Bryan Carmody. Respondents declared their response complete on Nov. 12, after I explicitly asked, and I filed complaint on Nov. 13. Approximately 2100 pages were initially produced (but note that it contains ~soo pages of completely public .Board of Supervisors agenda packets, ~300 pages of voter pamphlets and ~200 pages redacted by other parties - which is not redaction effort by the Respondents). On Nov. 26, 2019, Respondents provided their formal response. I reply2 below. This does not replace my original complaint. All allegations concern Respondents' actions prior to the filing of the complaint. Please have Respondents provide the SOTF Clerk with all produced PDFs on thumb drive so they can be introduced into the record.
1. Violations of SF Admin Code 67.21(c) - failure to assist in a timely or complete manner Respondents assert. that both attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product exemptions override contrary provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance. Only court cases or laws may be used to exempt information. While St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cal.App.4th 434 indeed allows the attorney-client privilege implied in the City Charter to
1 Late DCA Buck Delventhal is dismissed as a respondent due to his passing. His records remain the property of the City and Respondent Office of the City Attorney and must still be produced. 2 As a general matter, Respondents argue "good faith" as a defense to all violations. First, I do not believe they act in good faith because they do not follow the very Sunshine procedures (67.26/67.27, justifying every withholding/redactions) that ensure that they minimize withholding; their reasons · for peristing in such behavior are unknown to me. If they followed the procedures, then mistakes would not matter as much and occur less frequently. Second, good faith is a defense only to specific parts of the Sunshine Ordinance (ex. SFAC 67.29-5(b,c,e)), which are not at issue here. Third, good faith could also be a defense to a SFAC 67.34 allegation of intentional or willful violation but I have not (yet) made such allegations.
19120 - Anonymous v. Herrera, et al. (re: Adachi/Carmody) 1 P697 override section SFAC 67.24(b)(l)(iii) of the Sunshine Ordinance, I am aware of no case 3 that does the same for attorney work-product doctrine (St.· Croix explicitly did not ) or to override SFAC 67.21(c) (which does not implicate the contents, only the quantity, of any purportedly privileged records), and Respondents did not cite any. I do not believe your Mr. Herrera or this Task Force is permitted4 to create new classes of exempt information until a law or court· directs you to, and until then, the Constitution demands that we interpret limitations on public access narrowly.
Respondents also reason from Los Angeles Cty. Bd. of Supervisors that the quantity of privileged documents are exempt. But Los Angeles merely concludes (emphasis mine): " ... the contents of an invoice are privileged only if they either communicate information for the purpose of legal consultation or risk exposing information that was communicated for such a purpose. This latter category includes any invoice that reflects work in active and ongoing litigation." First, this is again an exemption on content, not quantity. Moreover, assuming, for ·the sake of argument, that Los Angeles applies, Respondents must still disclose the. number of purportedly privileged documents withheld that are not related to active and ongoing litigation.
2. Violations of SF Admin Code 67.21(b) - incomplete response Both the Respondents and the Supervisor of Records have now stated that no DCAAlicia Cabrera documents are missing, even though the title of their production strongly suggests it. Sadly I cannot take them on their word, since in at least two other cases (including one involving some of these same Respondents) the City has been '.1damant it has no additional responsive or disclosable records only to change its mind after persistent pushback from me and an initial SOTF hearing. Thus, I must maintain this allegation.
3. Violations of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27 - more than minimal withholding, failure to cite justification for withholding with clear reference to statute or case law SFAC 67.26: Respondents did not deny that they failed to key their redactions with · footnotes or other clear references to the justifications in their original response to the request, and your Task Force should take this violation of SFAC 67.26 as proven. They
3 "Because we conclude the documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege, we need not address City's argument that some of the documents are also protected by the attorney work product doctrine." St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cal.App.4th 434, 439 n.l (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) 4 Our Constitution and Supreme Court further require that administrative agencies (such as· your Task Force) and public officials (such as Mr. Herrera) follow the law regardless of their own view on the constitutionality of those laws. Mr. Herrera must be aware of this -- he represented the City in losing Lockyer v. CCSF on this same basis ("When, however, a duly enacted statute imposes a ministerial duty upon an executive official to follow the dictates of the statute in performing a mandated act, the official generally has no authority to disregard the statutory mandate based on the official's own determination that the statute is unconstitutional." 33 Cal.4th 1055, 1068 (Cal. 2004)). The duty to disclose information in response to an SFAC 67.21(c) request for quantity of public records (whether exempt or not) is mandatory·. Mr. Herrera does not get to nullify it using the City Charter (as the City's "constitution") until a court agrees with. his position. ·
19120 -Anonymous v. Herrera, et al. (re: Adachi/Carmody) 2 P698 have not even provided the full list of footnotes or other clear references after the fact of filing of the complaint, as many other City agencies do. Their original justifications for redaction were: "Please note that we have redacted personal information due to privacy reasons. See Cal Const., Article I, section l; Cal. Government Code Section 6254(c), (k); Admin. Code Section 67.l(g). For similar reasons, we have also redacted certain health-related information (e.g. medical records), pursuant to 42 U.S.C §1320(d) et seq. and 45 C.F.R. 160.03." That's it - no footnotes or references pointed out which redactions had which justifications, and they still won't provide that mapping.
SFAC 67.27: In their corp.plaint response, Respondents admit that Evid. Code 1040, 1041, 5 attorney-client privilege , Civ. Code 56.05(k), and 56. lO(b)(S) were justifications for redaction. They failed to cite these justifications, and thus violated SFAC 67.27. Respondents further admit in "3-20" that entire records were withheld under EC 1040 and privacy, but again they had failed to cite these justifications, and thus violated SFAC 67.27.
Detailed reply: Respondents argue that they should not be found in violation for mere mistakes among a 2100 page production (as an aside, note that a large portion of this document is not redactable by Respondents as it co.ntains ~soo pages of completely public Board of Supervisors agenda packets, ~300 pages of Voter ·Pamphlets and ~200 pages redacted by other parties). The mistakes are not the main issue - as stated above they simply refuse to fully comply with SFAC 67.26, which is what causes the mistakes.
Respondents appear (from this and other replies to me) to believe that unless people request individual redactions' justifications, they don't have to provide them. I do not have 6 7 to ask for justifications at all , but I nevertheless did ask for justifications to avoid precisely the kind of loopholes the government seeks tci evade complete response to records requests. General justifications for withholding are a mandatory part of the CPRAregime, and the Sunshine Ordinance goes further and also requires footnotes or other clear references when withholding exempt information by "masking" (aka redaction in common parlance). Explicit, mandatory justification for each and every withholding/redaction is important for your Task Force to continue to enforce - otherwise requesters not steeped in the intricacies of the CPRA/Sunshine can have information withheld from them, without notice or reason, and they may not know to further ask. The government further explicitly told me that their response to my request was complete prior to my filing of complaints.
5 Which was previously cited as a reason to withhold entire records, not portions (i.e. redactions). 6 When the Sunshine Ordinance/CPRA demand special requests, they say so. For example, immediate disclosure, exact copies, easily-generated electronic formats, rolling/incremental responses, and assistance must all be specifically requested. No request is required for justifications; the City must always provide them. 7 ''You must justify all withholding. Please ensure your justification is tied specifically to each and every redaction, not a general reason." Anonymous, pg. 2, para. 4, Sept. 20, 2019
19120 -Anonymous v. Herrera, et al. (re: Adachi/Carmody) 3 P699 Most importantly, when an agency is not forced to justify each and every redaction, a person doing the redactions is more likely to fall into a sloppy habit ofredacting based on a "feeling" of redactability for "seiisitive" information, instead of using specific legal justification every time. Errors will be more likely. As we know now, even Respondents' original generic list of reasons for redactions were not in fact complete (SFAC 67.27). Who knows how many more missing justifications or non-exempt redactions are still in the produced documents that I have not caught?
Worryingly, Respondents defend some of their over-redactions by stating that the same information is available elsewhere in the production. But a requester has no way of knowing that. The redaction could very well be something else, something that the City is inappropriately hiding. Given· 10 copies of a name spread throughout a document, redacting two of them arbitrarily remains non-minimal withholding (by definition!) and a SFAC 67 .26 violation.
The Respondents wish to put the burden of figuring out redactions on the public, but it is, by law, the City's responsibility to explain them.
In reply to their responses, I maintain or withdraw certain allegations below: 3-1. Maintained - I have no idea what they have actually withheld, and they have in a past case improperly withheld unprivileged documents, so I must maintain that some of the withheld documents are improperly withheld and should be disclosed. 3-2. Maintained - redaction was admittedly, partially non-exempt: (SFAC 67.26) The part that is still not disclosed is purportedly a password. If it is, Respondents perhaps should cite Gov Code 6254.19 for information security records, but they have not. 3-3. Maintained - redaction was admittedly non-exempt. (SFAC 67.26) 3-4. Maintained - the fact that a non-exempt name appears elsewhere in a document does not mean it can be hidden in a different location (if the name is in fact in the redaction - the response was not clear about that). (SFAC 67.26) 3-5. Maintained.- redaction was admittedly non-exempt. (SFAC 67.26) 3-6. Maintained - see 3-4. (SFAC 67.26) 3-7. Maintained - redaction was admittedly non-exempt. (SFAC 67.26) 3-8. Maintained - this EC 1040, 1041 exemption was not cited originally (SFAC 67.27). There was no footnote or other clear reference (SFAC 67.26). 3-9. Maintained - see 3-8. 3-10. Maintained - info was admittedly non-exempt (SFAC 67.26) and withheld due to a "technical error." Respondents unfortunate refusal to provide records in their original format is what causes these kinds of errors. 3-11. Maintained - redaction was admittedly non-exempt. (SFAC 67.26) 3-12. Maintained - withheld info was admittedly non-exempt. (SFAC 67.26) It is not appropriate that instead of providing a copy (in PDF form, without metadata as they wish) of the email with its hyperlinks, they have extracted them and provided them
19120 -Anonymous v. Herrew, et al. (re: Adachi/Carmody) 4 P700 separately. The City's tools can indeed preserve hyperlinks, as I've seen other agencies (ex. HR) produce disclosable hyperlinks in PDF form while still suppressing the exempt ones. 3-13. Withdrawn 3-14. Withdrawn 3-15. Withdrawn 3-16. Maintained - redaction is supposedly exempt, but their justification for redaction was not previously cited (SFAC 67.27). (In the original response, A-C privilege was a reason for withholding entire records, not for redactions). 3-17. Maintained. Note that Respondents' failure to comply with SFAC 67.26's footnote or other clear reference requirement is precisely why I do not know which redactions they made pursuant to CPRA/Sunshine instead of. a document that is already redacted. 3-18. Withdrawn 3-19. ·Maintained - this Civil Code 56.05/56.10 exemption was not Cited. originally (SFAC 67.27). There was no footnote or other clear reference (SFAC 67.26). 3-20. Maintained - this EC 1040 exemption was not cited originally (SFAC 67.27).
In further investigating the records produced, I have discovered as follows:
3"21. Respondents provide two copies of "SFPD Certified Letter recd 5-31-19.pdf." In one copy they withheld the first page of this file (a photocopy of the outside of the envelope) and also withheld the phone number against which the search warrant was executed. But in .the other copy they provide both of these. It is not known why an envelope, which has non-exempt information and is a public record, would be withheld (sometimes) without notifying me. The sometimes-redacted phone number is already in the public domain: see for example: h ttps://dig. abclocal.go .com/kgo/PD F /clan -noves-search-warrant-application.p df pg. 2
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Please find that the Respondents violated SF Admin Code sections 67.2l(b), 67.2l(c), 67.26, and 67.27, determine that some or all of the records or portions thereof withheld or not yet disclosed are public, and issue all appropriate orders.
Respectfully submitted,
ANONYMOUS Complainant/Petitioner
19120 - Anonymous v. Herrera, et al. (re: Adachi/Carmody) 5 P701 Leger, Cheryl (BOS)
From: [email protected] on behalf of '80695-54486849 @requests.muckrock.com' <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 8:24 PM To: SOTF, (BOS) Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21 (c) request
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
San Francisco City Attorney PRA Office Room 234 1 Doctor Carlton B Goodlett Place SF., CA 94102
November 13, 2019
This is a follow up to a previous request:
Attached is a new petition/complaint against the City Attorney's office re: Adachi/Carmody records. It has no metadata issues (but I reserve my right to file a separate metadata complaint later). Please provide a file number - thank~!
Your form will also be filled out.
Complainant: Anonymous [email protected] Respondents: City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Moira Walsh, Jana Clark, Wayne Snodgrass, Andrew Shen, Joshua White, Brad Russi, David Ries, Alicia Cabrera, Paul Zaretsky, Buck Delventhal, Scott Minty, Joy Perez, Jon Givner, Elizabeth Coolbrith, Odaya Buta, and the Office of the City Attorney Allegations: SFAC 67.21(b,c), 67.26, 67.27: failed to respond to a request for public records in a timely or complete manner, failed to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record, and failed to justify withholdings with clear reference to exemption statute or case law
Sincerely, Anonymous
Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F %3 Fnext%3 D%252 Faccounts%252 Fagency _logi n%252 Fsa n-fra ncisco-city-attorney-797%252 Fad a chi-communications- a udit-sf-city-atty-a nd-6721c-req uest- 80695%252 F%253 Fema il%253 Dsotf%252540sfgov .org&u rl_a uth_token=AAAu FDul p5q 6S04NYkWLTe PY9 NQ%3AliV6gE
p-fo2 %3Aw_dh3N34S9XkrEbYM2wPu8CIEJI Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.
For mailed responses, please address (see note): M uckRock News ·DEPT MR 80695 411A Highland Ave Somerville, MA 02144-2516
PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable.
On Nov. 13, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit {SF City Atty) and 67.21{c) request Supervisor of Records,
This is a new SFAC 67.21(d) petition against the City Attorney's office re: Adachi/Carmody records.
The records or parts to be determined, in writing, to be public are: 1. All metadata and email headers and native formats of the original emails. 2. All records listed in Allegation #2 in the attached SOTF complaint. 3. All redactions/withholdings listed in Allegation #3 (and suballegations) in the attached SOTF complaint.
The attached SOTF complaint is incorporated into this petition.
Sincerely, Anonymous
On Nov. 12, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request Hello,
Yes, the below request is complete.
Thanks,
[cid:[email protected]]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-4685 Direct www.sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook
PiD3 On Nov. 10, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckR<;>ck.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back. **
Hi,
Is this request complete?
Sincerely, Anonymous
On Oct. 22, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request Attached please find our supplemental response to the below request, which includes emails grouped with the correct attachments.
Please send replies to [email protected]
Sincerely,
[cid:[email protected]]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-4685 Direct www.sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook
On Oct. 18, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back. **
Thank.you for the records! I have a good amount to analyze in this response, and I look forward to the missing attachments. Please do email those if they fit.
RE: Rule of reason: While I have submitted multiple requests to your office, the total number of documents your office has produced in the last month is not very many (outside of this Adachi production). See for example the Sunshine Task Force order in Case 18049 directing FAMSF dept. to produce 7000 documents within one month. I do not believe I am anywhere close to such a number of documents (summed across all my City Atty requests per month) that they have previously found reasonable to prodwce per month. I also do not believe the rule of reason compounds across requests.
Furthermore, while you may be able to use the rule of reason to slow the pace of rolling document production (though I do not concede that), I do not believe it permits you to miss the IDR, 10-day, or 14-day extension deadlines for the Pi304 response itself (regardless of when the document is provided). I do intend to contest any purported use of rule of reason to delay responses.
Finally, I would also like to remind you that I have a right to remain anonymous both within and across requests, that there are many users of MuckRock.com's FOIA service, that I am not the only individual person who may be sending requests to you using this service, and that you may be mis-applying the rule of reason against other requesters without a basis to do so. (As an analogy consider assuming all anonymous users of hotmail.com are the same requestor). Regardless, if you accidentally mis-apply this rule to other persons, some other requester may complain.
Sincerely, Anonymous
On Sept. 20, 2019: Subject: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit {SF City Atty) and 67.21{c) request RE: Adachi Communications Audit - 2019-09-20
To Whom It May Concern:
**NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to Issue this request {though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back.**
I request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance {Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act {CPRA) the attached items from City Attorney's office. 7-day 67.21{c) statements are requested for each request as well.
Similar requests have been of the Mayor, SFPD, SF Police Commission, etc.
Sincerely, Anonymous
Filed via MuckRock.com E-ma ii (Preferred): 80695-54486849@req uests. m uckrock.com Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F %3 Fnext%3 0%252 Facco u nts%252 Fage ncy _logi n%252 Fsa n-fra ncisco-city-atto rney-797%252 Fada chi-communications- a ud it-sf-city-atty-a nd-672 lc-req uest- 80695%252 F%253 Fe ma il%253Dsotf%252540sfgov .o rg& u rl_ auth _toke n=AAAu FD u Ip5q 6S04NYkWLT e PY9 NQ%3Al iV6g E %3Aw_dh3N34S9XkrEbYM2wPu8CIEJI Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.
For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News DEPT MR 80695 411A Highland Ave Somerville, MA 02144-2516
PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable. P1b5 IN THE SAN FRANCISCO SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE
Anonymous v. Sunshine Ordinance Petition and City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Moira Complaint Walsh, Jana Clark, Wayne Snodgrass, Nov. 13, 2019 Andrew Shen, Joshua White, Brad Russi, David Ries, Alicia Cabrera, Paul Zarefsky, Buck Delventhal, Scott Minty, Joy Perez, SOTFNo. Jon Givner, Elizabeth Coolbrith, Odaya Buta, and the Office of the City Attorney
COMPLAINT
I allege Respondents failed to respond to a request for public records in a timely or complete manner, failed to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record, and failed to justify withholdings with clear reference to exemption statute or case law. This complaint does not contain metadata allegations; that will be filed separately.
FACTS OF THE CASE
I made a public records request from 80695-54486849@,reguests.muckrock.corn under the CPRA and Sunshine Ordinance on September 20, 2019, requesting records between February 15, 2019 and September 20, 2019 regarding "adachi" OR "public defender" OR "carmody" OR "North Bay News" from each of Respondents Herrera, Walsh, Clark, Shen, White, Russi, Ries, Cabrera, Zarefsky, Delventhal, Minty, Perez, Givner (listed by name), and certain department-wide accounts of the Office of the City Attorney. I also made a request under SF Admin Code 67.21(c) for a statement of existence, quantity, nature, and form of responsive records (regardless of exemption). See Appendix A for the request.
Respondent Coolbrith acknowledged the request on Sept. 26, and requested I narrow the request. After numerous back and forths during that day, I agreed to eliminate the keyword "public defender" and replaced it with "shield law." There are therefore 3 sets of keyword requests dated Sept. 20 for "adachi" OR "carmody" OR "North Bay News", and 1 set of requests dated Sept. 26 for "shield law." On Sept. 30, an SF Admin Code 67.21(c) statement (which I allege is incomplete) was provided by Coolbrith. On Oct. 3, Coolbrith issued an extension until Oct. 17. On Oct. 17, Respondent Buta provided an initial batch of records called "Records sent on 10.17.2019 for ,09.23.2019 Muckrock PRA request.pdf'. On
Anonymous v. Herrera, et al. (re: Adachi/Carmody) 1
P706 Oct. 18, Buta purported to invoke the rule of reason1 due to other requests they believe I submitted to their office, which I disputed on the same day. On Oct. 22, Coolbrith provided a supplemental response "Corrected Attachments.pdf'. On Nov. 12, without any further disclosure, Coolbrith confirmed the prior responses as of Oct. 22 were purportedly complete. See Appendix B for the email record.
ALLEGATIONS
1. Violations of SF Admin Code 67.21(c) - failure to assist in a timely or complete manner I made a request for a statement under SF Admin Code 67.2l(c) on Sept. 20. The statement was provided on Sept. 30. Because 67.2l(c) dictates a seven day deadline for this statement, this was untimely.
I also allege that the statement is incomplete and violates 67.2l(c), which reads in relevant part: A custodian of a public record shall assist a requester in identifying the existence, form, and nature of any records or information maintained by, available to, or in the custody of the custodian, whether or not the contents of those records are exempt from disclosure and shall, when requested to do so, provide in writing within seven days following receipt of a request, a statement as to the existence, quantity, form and nature of records ...
In Respondents' statement they state that an unspecified number of records are being withheld . Respondents rely on St. Croix iJ Grossman where the Court of Appeal found that the attorney-client privilege implied by the City Charter overrides the contrary provisions of SF Admin Code 67.2l(i). Respondents extend this argument to override SFAC 67.2l(c)'s requirement to provide statements of quantity even for exempt records. This is incorrect. The St. Croix opinion explicitly states the quantity of privileged exempt documents (emphasis mine): "St. Croix provided more than 120 documents, but, citing the attorney-client privilege (see Evid.Code, §§ 952, 954), withheld 24 written communications between the commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office." Respondents must provide the quantity of privileged documents. Clearly the Court of Appeal does not deem the quantity of privileged documents to itself to be privileged information.
2. Violations of SF Admin Code 67.2l(b) - incomplete response The records collection provided have the title "09.23.2019 Docs produced as a response for PRA request 09.23.19 (withoout Alicia docs).pdf' (sic). It is assumed "Alicia" refers to
1 It is not known whether this Oct. 18 invoc.ation of the rule ofreason was against this request or the other requests purportedly from me. The invocation does not appear to have affected this request so it may be moot. My allegations are not necessarily based on an improper invocation of the rule of reason, since the Respondents' timeliness violations occurred before Oct. 18.
Anonymous v. Herrera, et al. (re: Adachi/Carmody) 2 P707 Respondent Alicia Cabrera. Cabrera's documents must be provided. Please order that at least some of Cabrera's documents or some parts thereof are public.
3. Violations of SF Admin Code 67.26, 67.27 - more than minimal withholding, failure to cite justification for withholding with clear reference to statute or case law The primary Oct. 17 response has the following justification of exemption: Please note that we have redacted personal information due to privacy reasons. See Cal Const., Article I, section 1; Cal. Government Code Section 6254(c), (k); Admin. Code Section 67.l(g). For similar reasons, we have also redacted certain health-related information (e.g. medical records), pursuant to 42 U.S.C §1320(d) et seq. and 45 C.F.R. 160.03. In addition, we have also withheld records covered by attorney-client privilege (Cal. Gov't Code § 6276.04; Cal. Evid. Code § 954) and attorney work product (Cal. Gov't Code § 6276.04; Cal. Code of Civil Pro. § 2018.030).
While this may meet Respondents' requirement under SFAC 67.27 to cite exemption statutes, it does not meet the requirements of SFAC 67.26 where each such citation must be tied to each redaction with a "clear reference." It is unknown which redaction is associated with which justification. Furthermore, there are various redactions that are apparently not privacy or health related so those redactions are not covered by the justification above and thus also constitute violations of SFAC 67.27.
Please order that the following records or parts of records in the primary response are public: 3-1. Some or all records claimed to be privileged. Respondents Herrera, Coolbrith, and Office of the City Attorney previously incorrectly asserted attorney-client and work-product privilege over certain records in 19095 Anonymous v. Herrera, et al. and did not provide the (not genuinely privileged) records until complaints were proceeding so I have no reason to believe they have correctly asserted privilege this time either. Specifically, at least the following types of records cannot be so privileged and should be deemed public: 3-1-a. Records not written by an attorney, and not written by a client asking for legal advice 3-1-b. Records written by an attorney, but without any client being involved and without any legal interpretation (such as objective gathering of facts) 3-1-c. Records for which privilege has been waived by inclusion of any party on the thread who is neither a client nor an employee of the City Attorney's office (such as, but not limited to, Carmody or his attorneys, or any other journalist, or any other records requestor) 3-1-d. Records for which exemption was previously waived by production to any other record requestor
Anonymous v. Herrera, et al. (re: Adachi/Carmody) 3
P708 3-2. Pg. 6, 7 redactions - this cannot be personal or health information. It could be some other exemption that has been failed to be cited. 3-3. Pg. 8, 9 redactions - business emails cannot be exempt, nor the identity of the recipient. Also Respondents disclosed Mr. Burke's business email address on pg 10 and many other places anyway. 3-4. Pg. 61, 63 - 2nd redaction only - you hid the email address and the name. 3-5. Pg. 77, 99 redaction - not sure what this could be 3-6. Pg. 224, 228, 230, 235, 237, 240, 243, 235, etc. - redaction hides both name and email address 3-7. Pg. 264 - all redactions, unclear what has been redacted 3-8. Pg. 406-409 - almost all of this document is redacted and all of it is challenged 3-9. Pg. 410-415 - almost all of this document is redacted and all of it is challenged 3-10. Pg. 418, 420, 422, 424, 426, 428, 430, 432, 434, 436 - I was provided small portions of very large images. The rest of the image was withheld without justification. 3-11. Pg. 451- all redactions challenged, incl the incident number 3-12. Pg. 477-480 - hyperlink urls in the mayor's newsletter withheld without justification 3-13. Pg. 482 - video hyperlink withheld 3-14. Pg. 492 - hyperlink ofrecords provided. 3-15. Furthermore, since the records in that link on Pg. 492 were provided to Ms. Caen, they must also be provided to me with no additional redactions if they have not already been provided. 3-16. Pg. 495 - content redacted 3-17. Pg. 1283 - these redactions are government email addresses, not personal ones 3-18. Pg. 1972 - all attachments listed, it is unclear if these have been withheld or provided 3-19. Pg. 1986, 2017 - if these are privacy redactions for Adachi, I don't think privacy laws can apply to deceased persons 3-20. Pg. 2014 - there are no contents for file ''#3"
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
Please find that the Respondents violated SF Admin Code sections 67.2l(b), 67.21(c), 67.26, and 67.27, determine that some or all of the records or portions thereof withheld or not yet disclosed are public, and issue all appropriate orders.
Respectfully submitted,
ANONYMOUS Complainant/Petitioner
Anonymous v. Herrera, et al. (re: Adachi/Carmody) 4 P709 APPENDIX A
P710 Anonymous requestor
City Attorney Custodian of Records 1 Doctor Carlton B Goodlett Place, Room 234 San Francisco CA 94102 [email protected] sent via email
Our ref. Date #20192835 2019-09-20
RE: Adachi Communications Audit
To Whom It May Concern:
** NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back. **
We request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA) each of the below records from the City Attorney's office.
Furthermore, this is also a 7-day, SFAC 67.21(c) request for a statement of existence, quantity, nature, and form of responsive records (regardless of exemption) for each request made below (per custodian listed). You must provide these statements even if the records or any portion are exempt from disclosure. You cannot also merely assume ·all records are attorney-client or work-product privileged you must actually perform the search since some records might not be privileged, and in order to provide me the quantity under 67.21(c). I suspect the quantity may be 0 in the vast majority of requests, but you must still state so. Note also that not all of a particular record may be privileged and the Ordinance requires you to only withhold exempt portions.
We remind you of your obligations to provide electronic records in any format we request them in, if that format is the "original" format, "available" to you, OR "easily generated.'' Therefore, when we ask for "original electronic format" in each request below, we mean e-mails exported in the original format OR in the .eml OR .msg formats (your choice), with all non-exempt headers, metadata, formatting, attachments, images, etc. For the chat apps, a screenshot or print-out is acceptable, but it must retain all attachments, timestamps, images, etc. which must be provided separately if screenshots cannot capture that info.
However, if you choose (against our express wishes, and in violation of SFAC 67.21(1) and/or Gov Code 6253(b)) to convert emails, for example, to PDF or printed format, to easily redact them, you must ensure that you have preserved the full content (hyperlinks, formatting, images, attachments, etc.) of the original email record, which also contains many detailed headers beyond the generally used From/To/Subject/Sent/etc.
Original records are generally in color - do not convert them to black and white and thus destroy information.
P711 RE: Adachi Communications Audit
As used below 11 communications 11 include but are not limited to any metadata records showing that a conversation had taken place but is now deleted (due to expiration for example). Such records are common in "secret" chat apps. 11 Sent 11 and 11 received 11 include every form of communication or transmissions - including but not limited to 11 to, 11 11 from, 11 11 cc, 11 11 bcc, 11 mailing lists, group chats, etc. and also include posting or receiving messages in social media (like tweets or wall posts). 11 Account 11 refers to every account, not just a primary or public-facing account.
If you use PDF, you must use text pdfs (which are easily generated). Please don't use image/scanned PDFs to make it harder to analyze the records.
If you provide PDFs instead of native formats, only give a few of the headers, withhold attach ments/images, and/or improperly withhold public records that exist on private accounts/devices you may be in violation of SF Admin Code and/or CPRA, and we may challenge your decision at the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, Supervisor of Records, judicially, and/ or via any other remedies available to us.
You must justify all withholding. Please ensure your justification is tied specifically to each and ev ery redaction, not a general reason. One possibility is footnotes as contemplated by SFAC 67.26/27, but Adobe Acrobat also has a standard redaction tool to show redaction codes. If you withhold or redact records, do not destroy the originals - I intend to petition the Sup. of Records, SOTF, and/or Superior Court for all withholdings/redactions.
Provide records in a rolling fashion. Do not wait for all records to be available.
Please provide only those copies of records available without any fees. If you determine certain records would require fees, please instead provide the required free notice of which of those records are available and non-exempt for inspection in-person if we so choose. Please use email to respond.
Keywords provided should be searched in all parts of the record: subject, body, to/from/etc., headers, metadata, attachments, and so on.
You must provide all records on public accounts where requested below if the record is "about the conduct of public business" (City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)). The fact that a custodian may not intend to use their personal accounts to do "work" is not relevant - if the topic is the public business, you must disclose. Given the City's involvement in the Adachi-Carmody incident, all such mentions we request would in fact be about the public business.
I look forward to your 7-day 67.2l(c) statements, and a prompt disclosure for all else.
A. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, events, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED GOVT EMAIL OR CALENDAR ACCOUNTS, con taining any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal,
2of10
P712 RE: Adachi Communications Audit
(xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
B. an electronic copy (i.e. scan if only physical copies exist), in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of all memoranda, notebooks, papers, orders, warrants, arrest reports, evidence inventories, notes, post-its, court orders, subpoenas, mailings, invoices and other writing of the following, containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 created between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
C. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [ Facebook Messenger ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
D. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED accounts in [Telegram], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCity Attorney or [email protected])
E. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [ Facebook (i.e. Facebook pages, posts, etc.) ], con taining any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
3of10
P713 RE: Adachi Communications Audit
F. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following. ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [Slack], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR "public defender" OR 11 carmody 11 OR "North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
G. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [ Google Hangouts], containing any of the fol lowing (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR "public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR "North Bay News" between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
H. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [Signal}, containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender'' OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
I. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [ SMS/MMS/text/chat messages, using any app not explicitly mentioned in this request ] , containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
J. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or-
4 of 10
P714 RE: Adachi Communications Audit dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [ WhatsApp ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR "North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
K. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [ Instagram], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttomey or [email protected])
L. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [ WeChat ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
M. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [Skype], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
N. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps_, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [Twitter], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb.
5of10
P715 RE: Adachi' Communications Audit
15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
0. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR CITY-OWNED account in [ iMessage/Face-Time ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): "adachi 11 OR "public defender" OR 11 carmody 11 OR "North Bay News" between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
AA. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or- . dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the fol lowing ON THEIR PERSONAL email account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)), con taining any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi" OR "public defender" OR 11 carmody 11 OR "North Bay News" between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
BB. an electronic copy (or scan if only physical copies exist), in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Ordinance, of all personal (per City of San Jose v Su perior Court (2017)) memoranda, notebooks, papers, orders, note, post-its, and other writing of the following, containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi" OR "public defender" OR 11 carmody 11 OR "North Bay News" created between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
CC. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ Facebook Messenger], containing any of the following (case insensitive): "adachi" OR "public de fender" OR "carmody" OR "North Bay News" between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii). Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi)
6of10
P716 RE: Adachi Communications Audit
Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, iike twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
DD. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ Telegram ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or cityat [email protected])
EE. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ Facebook (i.e. Facebook pages, posts, etc.) ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCity Attorney or [email protected])
FF. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ Slack ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Her rera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or cityat [email protected])
GG. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ Google Hangouts ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public de fender11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i)
7of10
P717 RE: Adachi Communications Audit
Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCity Attorney or [email protected]) .
HH. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ Signal ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender" OR 11 carmody 11 OR "North Bay News" between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Her rera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or cityat- · [email protected])
II. an electronic copy, in the original electronic forII).at, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ SMS/MMS/text/chat messages, using any app not explicitly mentioned in this request], contain ing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
JJ. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ WhatsApp ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody11 OR 11 North Bay News" between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or cityat torney@sfci tyatty. org)
KK. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, ~nd inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ Instagram ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11
8of10
P718 RE: Adachi Communications Audit
OR 11 carmody 11 OR "North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or cityat [email protected]) ·
LL. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ WeChat], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR "public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Her rera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or cityat [email protected])
MM. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ Skype ], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News 11 between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Her rera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or cityat [email protected])
NN. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or-· dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [ Twitter], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public defender 11 OR 11 carmody 11 OR 11 North Bay News" between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Her rera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii) Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or cityat [email protected]) .
00. an electronic copy, in the original electronic format, with all headers, metadata, timestamps, attachments, appendices, exhibits, and inline images, except those explicitly exempted by the Or dinance, of all messages, emails, communications, or posts SENT or RECEIVED by each of the following ON THEIR PERSONAL account (per City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)) in [
9of10
P719 RE: Adachi Communications Audit iMessage/Face-Time], containing any of the following (case insensitive): 11 adachi 11 OR 11 public de fender" OR 11 carmody 11 OR "North Bay News" between Feb. 15, 2019 and Sept 20, 2019 : (i) Dennis Herrera, (ii) Moira Walsh, (iii) Jana Clark, (iv) Lisa Powell, (v) Wayne Snodgrass, (vi) Andrew Shen, (vii} Joshua White, (viii) Brad Russi, (ix) David Ries, (x) Alicia Cabrera, (xi) Paul Zarefsky, (xii) Buck Delventhal, (xiii) Scott Minty, (xiv) Joy Perez, (xv) Jon Givner, (xvi) office accounts (accounts that represent the office, and.not an individual, like twitter @SFCityAttorney or [email protected])
10 of 10
P720 APPENDIX B
P721 Subject: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.2l(c) request RE: Adachi Communications Audit - 2019-09-20
To Whom It May Concern:
** NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, .there is no going back. **
I request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA) the attached items from City Attorney's office. 7-day 67.2l(c) statements are requested for each request as well.
Similar requests have been of the Mayor, SFPD, SF Police Commission, etc.
Sincerely, Anonymous
Adachi-Audit-CityAtty.pdf U Download
~ ~ ~ From: San Erancisco City,~ Attorney " ~ , ~ ~~ " " U9%!2.B%!2.019 ~
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67 .2l(c) request Dear requester,
We received your request for documents from certain employees with the following keywords: "adachi," "public defender," "carmody," OR "north bay news". We would like to see if you would be willing to narrow or limit this request. In paiticular, the term "public defender" could potentially trigger a very large amount of information as our office is counsel to the office of the public defender, and much of this information may in any event be privileged. Is it possible to omit this keyword from our searches? Alternatively, are you able to identify a specific subject matter that we can focus on - it appears you are interested in the events surrounding carmody and Mr. Adachi's death. Given that you are apparently interested in conducting an "audit" of our communications with the public defender's office, another option might be to limit the request to communications to or from that office, or records and communications about that office, rather than all records and communications without regard to topic that happen to mention that office or where Mr. Adachi happened to be a co-recipient. Please let us know if you are willing to consider any of these options. Thank you.
Please send replies to [email protected]
Sincerely,
[cid:[email protected]]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera ( 415) 554-4685 Direct 'NWw.sfcityattorney.org P722 Find us on: Facebook
image002 CT Download
imageOOl CT Download
,...,WRDOOO CT Download
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Corrununications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67 .21 ( c) request **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back.**
Good morning,
I am willing to defer, but not cancel, the "public defender" search & production until after production of the remainder of the requests, if and only if your Office is willing to preserve and refrain from destroying (including but not limited to through any automatic process that enforces retention policies) potentially responsive records to that portion of my requests, as the CPRA requires production of records in existence at the time of the request.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67 .21( c) request **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back.**
And if your Office is willing to do so, please state as such in writing (email) .
.· Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Corrununications Audit (SF City Atty) aud 67 .2l(c) request Thanks for your quick response. We can try to preserve all documents, but we want to make clear that we cannot, as a practical matter, guarantee that no documents containing the words "public defender'' will ever be deleted. That would require us to first identify all the documents that contain that term, and the breadth and burden of that search is what prompted our email to you to begin with. If you can identify a specific
P723 subject matter and a reasonable timeframe for how long you want us to preserve documents for, that would help. For example, it sounds like you are interested in the events surrounding Mr. Adachi1s death and Mr. Carmody. If that is what you want, and you can let us know by when you anticipate renewing your request, we can preserve documents as to that subject matter until at least that date. We certainly would not be deleting documents for the purpose of evading your requests. Please let us know if this is acceptable.
Please send replies to [email protected]
Sincerely,
[cid:[email protected]]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-4685 Direct www.sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook
,..,WRDOOO U Download
imageOOl CT Download
image003 r+ Download
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.2l(c) request **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a Muck:Rock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back.**
Good afternoon,
My offer is to defer the 'public defender' search (not the others), until after you produce the others, and to make it concrete, let's say also no later than Nov. 1 - the earlier of which would trigger the request being live once again, if you can preserve the records until then.
My concern is not really that your would intentionally delete specific messages on govt property, but instead that 1) your computer retention systems may automatically delete all emails and similar older than N days, or 2) your employees/officials may delete responsive records on th.eir personal accounts given the intense controversy around this incident.
I assume of course that, as an attorney's office, you also have systems for legal holds to prevent such deletion on govt systems. So, can you ensure your retention systems would not delete records automatically, and issue a direction to
P724 your employees not to delete records (official or on personal prope1ty) responsive to my request? That way they would be on notice. Those two things would be sufficient for me.
Sincerely,
Anonymous
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request We were hoping you might eliminate "public defender" entirely. If you are certain that you want a search for that term and are merely putting it off until November 1, it may not really address our concern, and we may as well just do it now. But we'd ask again if you can limit the request to "public defender" documents concerning a specific subject matter of your choosing. 1£ that is possible, please let us know.
Thanks,
[cid:image002.jpg@O 1D57489 .4DE6F1AO]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-4685 Direct wwvv .sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook
~WRDOOO CT Download
imageOOl CT Download
image002 CT Download
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67 .2l(c) request **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back.**
You may adjust the queries as follows: l. "adachi" OR 2. "carmody" OR 3. "North Bay News" OR 4. "shield law"
The request date for #1-3 remains Sept. 20; and #4 is dated Sept. 26. All other caveats of my Sept. 20 request apply to #4 as well. P725 "public defender" is eliminated from the Sept. 20 request to the City Attorney. Of course, I have the right in the future to re-request any keyword.
Thanks,
Anonymous
Erom: San Francisco @i~ Attorney 09Z30l2019
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communicatious Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request We have determined that we have approximately 90 non-privileged emails from the accounts specified in your request mentioning the requested terms, in response to category A. In addition, we determined we have approximately 55 non-privileged documents responsive to category B. We have withheld some responsive records from our inventory in both of these categories based on the attorney-client privilege (Cal. Gov't Code § 6276.04; Cal. Evid. Code§ 954) and attorney work product privilege (Cal. Gov't Code§ 6276.04; Cal. Code of Civil Pro.§ 2018.030). We have no responsive documents for categories C-00.
Please send replies to [email protected]
Sincerely,
[cid: image003.jpg@O1 D57798 .8363D570]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-4685 Direct \VWw.sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook
imageOOl CT Download
image003 CT Download
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request _ ** NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back.**
Thank you for that determination. 1. Does this include the replacement of "public domain" keyword with "shield law"? . 2. Please provide the quantity of documents you are claiming privilege over in A and B. 67.21(c) requires you to provide quantity even if documents are withheld. Please do so. (Furthermore, the quantity is not something you can claim privilege over, since such information would be disclosed in, for example, a privilege log in court, and therefore you would not be able to use St. Croix to assert 67.21(c)'s requirement to provide a quantity of privileged documents is contrary to the City Charter.)
P726 Please disclose all documents going forward in a rolling fashion.
Thanks, Anonymous
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67 .2l(c) request This did indeed include "shield law" in lieu of "public defender." We disagree with your position that we must list privileged documents in our 67.2l(c) statement. The St. Croix decision confirms that the Sunshine Ordinance does not compel disclosure of information that falls within the scope of the attorney-client privilege. Requiring us to divulge info1~mation about the extent to which we have communicated with our clients about specific topics would violate the privilege.
Please send replies to [email protected]
Sincerely,
[cid:[email protected]]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-4685 Direct www.sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook
image002 l1 Download
imageOOl l1 Download
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67 .2l(c) request I am writing on behalf of the City Attorney's Office in response to your request for records below. Please note that we are invoking an extension of time under Government Code section 6253(c) due to the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records. We will endeavor to process your request as quickly as possible and anticipate responding no later than the close of business October 17, 2019. If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact us at the information below.
Pl ease send replies to ci tyattorney@sfci tyatty .o rg
Sincerely,
[cid:image002.jpg@O 1D57A06.8CC460 l O]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-4685 Direct I ' , P727 www.sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook
~WRDOOO
CT Download
image002 CT Download
imageOOl CT Download
0 2 - Nrom: San Erancisco City Attorney EOZHZ/2019 ,
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request Hello,
I am writing on behalf of the City Attorney's Office in response to your below records request. Below is an flP link with fogin credentials, to download the responsive records, which will expire in seven days. Please note that we have redacted personal information due to privacy reasons. See Cal Const., Article I, section l; Cal. Government Code Section 6254(c), (k); Admin. Code Section 67. l(g). For similar reasons, we have also redacted certain health-related information (e.g. medical records), pursuant to 42 U.S.C §1320(d) et seq. and 45 C.F.R. 160.03. In addition, we have also withheld records covered by attorney-client privilege (Cal. Gov't Code§ 6276.04; Cal. Evid. Code§ 954) and attorney work product (Cal. Gov't Code§ 6276.04; Cal. Code of Civil Pro.§ 2018.030).
Your credentials:
Username: UVLOJXSOKM
Password: nrLLJM4E
Download URL:
https://sfftp.sfgov.org
The login above will expire on 10/24/2019 12:00:00 AM
Please send replies to [email protected]
Sincerely,
OdayaButa
Legal Assistant
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-5960 Direct
P728 [email protected]
'vww.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
Records20sent20on2010 .17.201920for2009 .23.201920Muckrock20PRA20request.pdf CT Download
image005 CT Download
image003 CT Download
image004 CT .Download
imageOOl CT Download
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67 .21 (c) request **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.corn service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back.**
Wonde1ful ! - please email these over as attachments or publish them on your website without login.
Does this complete your response?
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.2l(c) request Hello,
Unfortunately, the production is too large to send via email. The FTP website is our standard way of producing documents that are too voluminous to send by email. In terms of whether our response is complete - we are realizing that the attachments to some of the emails in the production were inadvertently left off due to a technical error. We are working on this and expect to send you the missing attachments next week.
P729 In addition, we want to provide an update on your other document requests. In the past few weeks you have submitted many requests to our office, many of them very complex and often with multiple subparts and requests for follow-up, and in some cases you have sought documents in particular file formats that makes the requests even more time consuming to respond to. To date we have addressed all of your requests in accordance with the standard deadlines, but.continuing to set other work aside for this purpose is not possible. Accordingly, we will need to invoke the rule of reason at this time. We will devote. a reasonable amount of time to your requests, in the order we receive them, and of course we will aim to meet the regular deadlines where that is reasonably possible. If there are specific requests outstanding that you want us to prioritize over others, please let us know.
[cid:[email protected]]0daya Buta Legal Assistant · Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-5960 Direct [email protected]
This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may include privileged or confidential information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately, and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
imageOOl CT Download
image003 CT Download
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.2l(c) request **NOTE: Please redact aU responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the Muck.Rock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a Muck.Rock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back.**
Thank you for the records! I have a good amount to analyze in this response, and I look forward to the missing attachments. Please do email those if they fit.
RE: Rule of reason: While I have submitted multiple requests to your office, the total number of documents your office has produced in the last month is not very many (outside of this Adachi production). See for example the Sunshine Task Force order in Case 18049 directing FAMSF dept. to produce 7000 documents within one month. I do not believe I am anywhere close to such a number of documents (summed across all my City Atty requests per month) that they have previously found reasonable to produce per month. I also do not believe the rule of reason compounds across requests.
Fmthermore, while you may be able to use the rule of reason to slow the pace of rolling document production (though I do not concede that), I do not believe it permits you to miss the IDR, 10-day, or 14-day extension
P730 deadlines for the response itself (regardless of when the document is provided). I do intend to contest any purported use of rule of reason to delay responses.
Finally, I would also like to remind you that I have a right to remain anonymous both within and across requests, that there are many users of MuckRock.com's FOIA service, that I am not the only individual person who may be sending requests to you using this service, and that you may be mis-applying the rule of reason against other requesters without a basis to do so. (As an analogy consider assuming all anonymous users of hotmail.com are the same requestor). Regardless, if you accidentally mis-apply this rule to other persons, some other requester may complain.
Sincerely, Anonymous
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67 .21 (c) request Attached please find our supplemental response to the below request, which includes emails grouped with the correct attachments.
Please send replies to [email protected]
Sincerely,
[cid:[email protected]]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-4685 Direct www.sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook
Corrected Attachments CT Dovvnload
image004 CT Download
image002 CT Download
imageOOl CT Download
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audlt (SF City Atty) and 67 .21( c) request **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on
P731 the MuckRock.corn service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back.**
Hi,
Is this request complete?
Sincerely, Anonymous
From: San Francisco @ity Attorney - , '· ,' - : - 11112%2019
Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67 .21 (c) request Hello,
Yes, the below request is complete.
Thanks,
[cid:[email protected]]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-4685 Direct www.sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook
imageOOl CT Download
image002 CT Download
P732 le er, Cheryl (BOS)
From: [email protected] on behalfof '80695-54486849 @requests.muckrock.com' <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 8:24 PM To: SOTF, (BOS) Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
San Francisco City Attorney PRA Office Room 234 1 Doctor Carlton B Goodlett Place SF, CA 94102
November 13, 2019
This is a follow up to a previous request:
SOTF,
Attached is a new petition/complaint against the City Attorney's office re: Adachi/Carmody records. It has no metadata issues (but I reserve my right to file a separate metadata complaint later). Plea.se provide a file number - thanks!
Your form will also be filled out.
Complainant: Anonymous [email protected] Respondents: City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Moira Walsh, Jana Clark, Wayne Snodgrass, Andrew Shen, Joshua White, Brad Russi, David Ries, Alicia Cabrera, Paul Zarefsky, Buck Delventhal, Scott Minty, Joy Perez, Jon Givner, Elizabeth Coolbrith, Odaya Buta, and the Office of the City Attorney Allegations: SFAC 67.21(b,c), 67.26, 67.27: failed to respond to a request for public records in a timely or complete manner, failed to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record, and failed to justify withholdings with clear reference to exemption statute or case law
Sincerely, Anonymous
Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F %3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Fsan-francisco-city-attorney-797%252Fadachi-communications- a u d it-sf-city-atty-an d-67 21c-req u est- 80695 %252 F%253Femai1%253Dsotf%252540sfgov .o rg& u rl _a uth _toke n=AAAu FD u Ip5q6S04NYkW LT e PY9 NQ%3A1 iV6gE
p'f33 %3Aw_dh3N34S9XkrEbYM2wPu8CIEJI Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know.
For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News DEPT MR 80695 411A Highland Ave Somerville, MA 02144-2516
PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through Mucl On Nov. 13, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit {SF City Atty) and 67.21{c) request Supervisor of Records, This is a new SFAC 67 .21{d) petition against the City Attorney's office re: Adachi/Carmody records. The records or parts to be determined, in writing, to be public are: 1. All metadata and email headers and native formats of the original emails. 2. All records listed in Allegation #2 in the attached SOTF complaint. 3. All redactions/withholdings listed in Allegation #3 (and suballegations) in the attached SOTF complaint. The attached SOTF complaint is incorporated into this petition. Sincerely, Anonymous On Nov. 12, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit {SF City Atty) and 67.21{c) request Hello, Yes, the below request is complete. Thanks, [cid:[email protected]]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera {415) 554-4685 Direct www.sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook PT34 On Nov. 10, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back. ** Hi, Is this request complete? Sincerely, Anonymous· On Oct. 22, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request Attached please find our supplemental response to the below request, which includes emails grouped with the correct attachments. Please send replies to [email protected] Sincerely, [cid:[email protected]]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith Paralegal Qffice of City Attorney Dennis Herrera (415) 554-4685 Direct www.sfcityattorney.org Find us on: Facebook On Oct. 18, 2019: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back. ** Thank you for the records! I have a good amount to analyze in this response, and I look forward to the missing attachments. Please do email those if they fit. RE: Rule of reason: While I have.submitted multiple requests to your office, the total number of documents your office has produced in the last month is not very many (outside of this Adachi production). See for example the Sunshine Task Force order in Case 18049 directing FAMSF dept. to produce 7000 documents within one month. I do not believe I am anywhere close to such a number of documents (summed across all my City Atty requests per month) that they have previously found reasonable to produce per month. I also do not believe the rule of reason compounds across requests. Furthermore, while you may be able to use the rule of reason to slow the pace of rolling document production (though I do not concede that), I do not believe it permits you to miss the IDR, 10-day, or 14-day extension deadlines for the PJ35 response itself (regardless of when the document is provided). I do intend to contest any purported use of rule of reason to delay responses. Finally, I would also like to remind you that I have a right to remain anonymous both within and across requests, that there are many users of MuckRock.com's FOIA service, that I am not the only individual person who may be sending requests to you using this service, and that you may be mis-applying the rule of reason against other requesters without a basis to do so. (As an analogy consider assuming all anonymous users of hotmail.com are the same requestor). Regardless, if you accidentally mis-apply this rule to other persons, some other requester may complain. Sincerely, Anonymous On Sept. 20, 2019: Subject: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request RE: Adachi Communications Audit - 2019-09-20 To Whom It May Concern: **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back.** I request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act (CPRA) the attached items from City Attorney's office. 7-day 67.21(c) statements are requested for each request as well. Similar requests have been of the Mayor, SFPD, SF Police Commission, etc. Sincerely, Anonymous Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F %3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Fsan-francisco-city-attorney-797%252Fadachi-communications- a ud it_sf~city-atty-a nd-672 lc-req uest- 80695 %252 F%253Femai1%253 Dsotf%252540sfgov .o rg& u rl_ a uth _toke n=AAAu FDu I p5q 6S04NYkWLTe PY9 NQ%3A1iV6gE %3Aw_dh3N34S9XkrEbYM2wPu8CIEJI Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know. For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News DEPT MR 80695 411A Highland Ave Somerville, MA 02144-2516 PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable. PJ36 espondents .. cu ent Su miss-i n \ . P737 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ·OFFICE OFTHE CITY ATIORNEY DENNIS J. HERRERA JOHN Con~ City Attorney Press Secretary, ·communications Director · 'Direct Dial:: ... (415) 554-4662 · ··Email: : [email protected] . · November 26, 2019 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL : ~ . : Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force c/o: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Attn: Victor Young, Administrator · . Room 244, City Hall · 1 Dr. Carlton B .. Goodlett Place San Francisco CA 94102 [email protected] Re: ~unshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint No. 19120 . ·.· .. Anonymous (MuckRock News) v. Office.of the City Attorney DearHo~orabie T~sk Force Memb~rn:' . we write in respons~ to the complaint filed by the anonyn:wus person affiliated with MuckRock News, cori~erning our office's response to his public records request concerning Jeff Adachi and related topics...... The requester sent the request by email minutes before the end of the business day on Friday, September 20, at 4:37 p.m. The request asked 16 employees across the office to produce · records containing any of four keywords pertainirig to the recently deceased Public Defender, Jeff Adachi. The request had 30 subparts, each covering a different type of record (e.g., emails, social media messages/posts, memoranda, notebooks, papers, orders, warrants, arrest reports, evidence inventories, notes_, post-its, court orders, subpoenas, mailings, and invoices). · · · · • • • ' .,• • • • • • • • • • • • ' • ~ I • ' • ' ' • The email also.sought-a statement under Administrative Code Section 67.21(c) concerning the existence, quantity, form, and nature of these records. · · · · · As we began processing the request, we came to realize that certain keywords would likely yield a massive amount Df records, so we asked the requ~ster if he was ·willing to clarify or narrow the request. Of). Friday, September 27, we received an email from the ·requester stating he would delete one keyword (at our request) and add a new one in its .place. We provided the Section 67.21(c) statement the next business day, Monday, September 30. Thereafter we produced over two thousand pages of documents. We heard nothing further regarding .the response until we received this complaint. The complaint is based on three allegations, which we address in tum. 1. Timeliness of and adequacy of the Section 67.21(c) statement The coniplai~t first ail~ges that the Section 67.ll(c) statement w~s ~ntirnely. The requester sent the original request to the City Attorney's inbox late on Friday, September 20, and while we check the inbox regularly, we were not able to review the request until the morning of the next business day (Monday,· September 23). In any event, as stat.ed above, on September 27, we CITY HALL· l DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PL, SUITE234 ·SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA94102-5408 · RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 ·FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4699 P738 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO . OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY Letter to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, Page 2 November 26, 2019 · . received a rnodificatio~ of one of the four keywords from the requester. The req~est remaified for a single Section 67 .21 (c) statement for all records that contained any of the four identified keywords (the three which had not changed, and the one which had). We needed an extra day to take into account the modification of that keyword before we could respond, both to include the new keyword and because a statement that included information on the now-deleted keyword would have been inaccurate. We were able to complete this task by Monday, September 30, the next business day. The complaint next alleges that our Section 67.21(c) request was incomplete, because we did nof specify the number of responsive records that are exempt from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege. The literal text of Section 67.21(c) states that a response should encompass records "whether or not the contents of those records are exempt from disclosure," but the Sunshine Ordinance does not, and cannot, abrogate the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product privilege. See St. Croix v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 434 (regarding attorney-client privilege). And the attorney-client privilege covers not just the specific substantive content of our advice, but also the circumstances of when and how frequently a client department seeks our advice and when and how frequently we provide advice. The California Supreme Court has explained that the attorney-client privilege occupies a "special place" in the law, and that it even applies to information that i:nay on its face appear "more general," if that information comes "close enough" to communications made for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice. Los Angeles County Bd. ofSupervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, 292, 297. In the Los Angeles County Gase, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the attorney-client privilege attaches to information in· billing records that "inform[s] the 'Client of the · nature or amount of work occurring in connection with a pending legal issue." Id. (emphasis added). Disclosing the number of privileged records reflects the ."nature or amount of work" in the same way that a billing record would. See also id.. at 294 ("[T]he privilege concerns not only the manner in which information is transmitted, but the nature of the communication."). This case illustrates that principle, both as to attorney-client communications and attorney work product, both of which are privileged under the law. The keywords submitted by the requester indicated a specific subject matter, namely Jeff Adachi's death. Exposing· the amount of work we were doing on that matter at any given time through a document count raises the same concern as asking for real-time billing records, which the Los Angeles County case said would violate the privilege. Requiring the disclosure of the number of privileged records would discourage frank discussion on the subject within our Office, and likewise discourage communication between our Office and client departments on the subject. Id. Clients would be reluctant to contact us if they or we had to report how many times they had asked questions concerning specific keywords. Our office would have to censor itself from sending "too many" emails to client departments or from writing "too many" legal memoranda, lest the document count convey an impression to the public that we perceive there to be a legal risk. · Accordingly, in accordance with the Los Angeles County case, the information withheld in response to the Section 67.21(c) was privileged and was not required to be disclosed as part of the Section 67 .21 (c) statement. The complaint responds that the quantity of privileged communications must be non.:. . privileged, because the St. Croix opinion mentioned that 24 privileged records were at issue in that case. St. Croix did not involve a Section 67.21(c) request. The opinion refers to the number of documents only as "background," and does not actually hold that the quantity of documents concerning a particular topic is not privileged. P739 . ·--··--·-····------CIN AND COUNN OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CINATIORNEY Letter to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, Page 3 November 26, 201.9 · 2. Completeness of'the document production . . : : .....·.- . . . . . ·. . . . The complaint alleges, based on the title of one of the electronic files we produced, that the productio°' did not include any dqcuments from a certain employee. The requester did not raise this issue with us before filing this petition. Regardless, the claim has no merit. The production does include that empfoyee's documents. · 3. Redactions to the document production. The final allegation concerns specific items that our office- redacted. These issues also could have.been raised with us first, before filing a complaint. Requesters always have the option to contact us with questions rather than file a complaint- a siinple clarification suffices to resolve many of the questions raised bere. Our responses to the requester's questions are. as follows: . 3-1. . The complaint asks the Task Force to issue a general pronouncement on how the attorney-client privilege and work product privilege would apply to abstract situations. This is unnecessary, as the basic principles governing these privileges are simple and . well-established. The requester is incorrect to claim that these privileges can never apply ·to records not written by an attorney (3-la), or to the gathering of facts by an attorney (3- . lb). A record may be privileged if it was prepared at the direction of an attorney, and the · · :gathering of facts by an attorney fits squarely under the definition of attorney work ·product. See, e.g., Cal. Code Civ. Proc.§ 2018.030. With respect to waiver (3-lc, 3-ld), we would generally agree that the privilege may be waived if the waiver was authorized by the person who holds the privilege, and was not inadvertent. We· have followed these rules. · · ·. · · .· · '· · · 3-2 We redacted this information thinking it was a personal phone.number. On further review, the first line is actually a dial-in number for a conference call: 1/888-757- 0729. We cannot provide the information in the second line, since it is a password that was issued for the personal use of the invited attendees; . 3-3 The email address was redacted in error and is "[email protected]". Please note: The identical document appears without redactions on p. ·178 .. 3-4 The redacted information is Mr. Carmody's private email account. We do not agree that the name was hidden: the body of the email (directly below the redaction) begins with the words, ''Dear Mr. Carmody." · 3-5 We redacted this information thinking itwas a private phone number. On further review, the number is not p:i;ivate. The number is 415.276.6552. Please note: The identical email appears without redactions on p .. 92. · 3-6 . See response to 3-4. 3-7 · The top line is the email address of Thomas Burke: [email protected]. The next two lines are Bryan Carmody' s private email account, which is confidential; ·and the last lineis Joseph Obi di' s email address: Joseph.A. Obi di @sfgov .org. Please note: The identical emails appear without redactions in numerous places, e.g., pp. 226, 228, 230, . 234. P740 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Letter to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, Page 4 November 26, 201? · 3-8 The redacted portions of this document reflect the report by a complainant and an ongoing investigation. Redactions are warranted where disclosing a complainant's identity could expose a person to retaliation or compromise an ongoing investigation. See generally Cal. Evid. Code§ 1040, 1041. We apologize for neglecting to mention these provisions in our original cover letter. 3-9 See response to 3-8. 3-10 The pages were cut off due to a technical error that we were unaware of. We have since provided the requester with an updated version of this document. 3-11 The ineident number appears unredacted on the immediately preceding and following pages. The remaining redactions for personal emails and license plate numbers are appropriate. 3-12 The hyperlink URLs in the document are as ·follows: Affordable Housing Bond (https ://www .sfchronicle.comlbayarea/article/SF-Mayor-Breed-wants-t0-m.ove-up-300- million-bond-13515066. php, https;//www .sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco- . s-proposed-affordable-housing-13733479.php); Appointing New City Leaders (https:// www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-mayor-picks-Manohar-Raju-as-city-s-next- 13679141.php, https://www .nbcbayarea.com./news/local/San-Francisco-Mayor-Announce -Appointment-New-Fire-Chief-507087 511.html, https://sfmayor.org/article/mayor london:-breed-a'ppoints-dr-anton-nigusse-bland-serve-director-mental-health-reform); In the News ( https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Do-voters-want-San-Francisco to-buy-PG-E-s-13739939.php, https://sf.curbed.com./2019/4/16/18328991/transit switchback-muni-shamann-walton-london-breed, https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/ article/88-000-people-in-SF-who-lost-driver-s-licenses-13770157 .php, . https://www .sfchronicle,comlbayarea/article/Neighborhood-preference-pro gram-for affordable-1366885 8. php, https ://www.ebar.com./news/news//273513/breed_kicks_ off_open_to_all, https://abc7news.com./society/new-affordable-housing-building-for families-opens-in-.sf/517 5439/, https://www .sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Temporary ferry-terminal-planned-for-W arriors-13773191. php); · Neighborhood Office Hours (https://sfmayor:org/m.ons); Apply for Mayor Breed's Bridge to ·Excellence Scholarship Program (https://sfmayor.org/priorities/education); Neighborhood Town Hall (https://www.youtube.com./watch?v=:=yglipm9Q5jl, https://sfmayor.org/townhall); Earth Month ( https ://medium.coml@LondonBreed/a-month-of-climate-action- b0a27d49l699,https://sfenvironment.org/climateaction). 3-13 We did not withhold any information. Immediately following the hyperlink is a parenthetical, stating that the video is "also linked below". The full URL then appears belOw in two places, on pp. 484-485. 3-14 As stated in the document, this is a dropbox link that was active for only 10 days. 3-15 The request did not seek the documents referenced in the com.plaint. Now that the requester has asked for them, we have provided them to the requester. 3-16 The information is attorney-client privileged. 3-17 We did not redact this document. We received it with redactions and do not have a unredacted copy. P741 -··----.-·-············-···- .. -.. -.-- .. -:------:-·----·--·---.------.-.-. ---~-. ------.------.---. -··· CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY Letter to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, Page 5 November 26, 2019 3-18 See response to 3-15. 3-19 Putting aside the requester's claim that a deceased person loses all privacy rights, redactions of a home address are necessary .to protect the privacy of living persons who reside at that home address. As for the medical records, they are confidential under California Civil Code Sections 56.05(k) and 56.lO(b)(S). We apologize for neglecting to mention these Civil Code provisions in the cover letter. · · 3-20 The information is withheld under Evidence Code l040 and the privacy records .. cited in the original cover letter. We trust that this addresses the requester's questions,. and would subi:nit that our office acted ·in good faith and has complied with its obligations. Any .deficiencies were not substantive, were minor when viewed in the context of the entire 2,000+ page production, and in the handful of instam;:es involving an incorrect redaction there were usually unredacted copies of the identical document already available to the requester. We would also urge the Task Force to keep in mind the tremendous burdens that this requester had been placing on our office at the time. We produced more than 2,000 pages in response to t_his one request. While this request was pending, we were also responding to many other requests from this same requester, and ultimately had to invoke the rule of reason as a guide to the timing of our responses. We are willing to provide a more detailed summary of all· the then-pending requests if that would be helpful for the Task Force.·· · · For the foregoing reasons; we respectfully request that the complaint be dismissed. DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney . I . . t-~~ ~( .tor John Cote Press Secretary, Communications Director . P742 I (BOS) From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 3:37 PM To: COTE, JOHN (CAT); COOLBRITH, ELIZABETH (CAT) Subject: SOTF - Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force - File No. 19120 Attachments: SOTF - Complaint Procedure 2019-09-24 FINAL.docx; 19120 Complaint.pdf Good Afternoon: The Office of the City Attorney has been named as a Respondent in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the following complaint/request within five business days. The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is your opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting. Please include the following information in your response if applicable: 1. List all relevant records with descriptions that have been provided pursuant to the Complainant request. 2. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complai11ant. 3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to search for the relevant records. 4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been excluded. 5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable). Please refer to the File Number when submitting any new information and/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint. The Complainant alleges: . Complaint Attached. Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724 Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form. The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998. Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Boord of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit ta the Board and its committees-may appear an the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy. P?143 Leger, Cheryl (BOS) From: Cote, John (CAT) Hi Cheryl, In the future, please send these types of emails to [email protected]. You can send them to Elizabeth and myself directly in addition to that, but please ensure that they go to [email protected]. Thank you, John Cote Communications Director Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera City and County of San Francisco (415) 554-4662 Direct www.sfcityattorney.org CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content is prohibited. From: SOTF, (BOS} Good Aftern.oon: The Office of the City Attorney has been named as a Respondent in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the following complaint/request within five business days.· The Respondent is required to submit a written response to the allegations including any and all supporting documents, recordings, electronic media, etc., to the Task Force within five (5) business days of receipt of this notice. This is your opportunity to provide a full explanation to allow the Task Force to be fully informed in considering your response prior its meeting. Please include the following information in your response if applicable: 1. List all relevant records with descriptions that have been provided pursuant to the Complainant request. 2 .. Date the relevant records were provided to the Complainant. 3. Description of the method used, along with any relevant search terms used, to search for the relevant records. 4. Statement/declaration that all relevant documents have been provided, does not exist, or has been excluded. 5. Copy of the original request for records (if applicable). pj44 Please refer to the File Number when submitting any new information and/or supporting documents pertaining to this complaint. The Complainant alleges: Complaint Attached. Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724 llf.{f)• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form. The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998. Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisca Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. Alf written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy. p-,245 Leger, Cheryl (BOS) From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Friday, Dece.mber 6, 2019 11 :36 AM To: [email protected]; Steinberg, David (DPW); grovestand2012 @gmail.com; Vien, Veronica (DPH); Ludwig, Theresa (FIR); Gerull, Linda (TIS); Anonymous; Makstman, Michael (TIS); [email protected]; Coolbrith, Elizabeth (CAT); COTE, JOHN (CAT); 80239-52834911 @requests.muckrock.com; Hirsch, Bob (POL); Taylor, Damali (POL); Mazzucco, Thomas (POL); Hamasaki, Jo.hn (POL); Elias, Cindy (POL); Brookter, Dion-Jay (POL); Campbell, Jayme (POL); Blackman, Sue (LIB); Lambert, Michael (LIB); Kniha, .Paul; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Cox, Andrew (POL); 80368-97597279 @requests.muckrock.com; Rydstrom, Todd (CON); 'Wiggins, Matthew (CON)'; [email protected]; Ccix, Andrew (PO.L) Subject: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Complaint Committee Jurisdiction Hearing: December 17, 2019, 5:30 p.m. Good Morning: Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee (Committee) of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to determine if the.Task Force has jurisdiction . pursuant to Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21 ( e). A hearing to review the merits of the complaint Will be scheduled on a future date. The Complaint Committee (Committee) shall review File No(s). 19097, 19109, 19110, 19117, 19118, 19119, 19120, 19121, 19122, 19123, 19124, 19125, 19126 and 19127. The Complainant and Respondent are NOT REQUIRED to attend the December 17, 2019, Complaint Committee meeting but may attend to provide testimony related to · the above listed determinations. A hearing to review the merits of the complaint will be scheduled on a future date. Date: December 17, 2019 Location: City Hall, Room 408 Time: 5:30 p.m. File No. 19097: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Public Works for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/o.r complete manner. File No. 19109: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against Dept. of Public Health for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19110: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Fire Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. pj-45 File No. 19119: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Department ofTechnology for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine OrdinanceL Sections 67.21(b), 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19120: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner; failing to justify withholding of records and failing to provide assistance. File No. 19121: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code {Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(k), 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely . and/or complete manner; withholding i:nore than the minimum and failing to justify withholding. File No. 19122: Complaint filed by Anonymous against City Librarian Michael Lambert and the Public Library for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19123: Complaint filed by Paul Kniha against the San Francisco Municipal Executive Association for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67 .21 by failing to respond to a public records in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19124: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Chief William Scott and Lt. R. Andrew Cox and the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to justify withholding of records and failing to maintain a Proposition G calendar. File No. 19125: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Controller's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c}(k}, 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for records in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record, failing to justify withholdings with clear reference to exemption statute or c'ase law and failing to provide an exact copy of records. File No. 19127: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Department of Police Accountability for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance}, Sections 67.21, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request for records in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record, failing to justify withholdings with clear reference to exemption statute or case law and failing to provide an exact copy of records. Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724 Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form. The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, ·and archived matters since August 1998. Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Pi-4 7 Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members ofthe public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board ofSupervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public subniit to the Clerk's Office regarding pendi11g legislation or hearings will be made available to all members ofthe public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that ci n1ember of the public elects to submit.to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board ofSupervisors website or in other public documents that members ofthe public may inspect or copy. PT48 le er, Cheryl (BOS) From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: . Monday, January 13, 2020 3:22 PM To: '[email protected]'; Hecket Hank (MYR); '79182-05441065 @requests.muckrock.com'; Gerull, Linda (TIS); 'D'Amato, Nina (TIS)'; '79356-20639593 @requests.muckrock.com'; Nuru, Mohammed (DPW); Steinberg, David (DPW); 'S'; Vien, Veronica (DPH); Ludwig, Theresa (FIR); 'Con Rad'; Peters, Michelle (PUC); [email protected]; Cox, Andrew (POL); Makstman, Michael (TIS); Licudine Barker, Arlene (TIS); 'Anonymous'; '[email protected]'; 'Cote, John (CAT)'; '80239-52834911 ©requests.muckrock.com'; Hirsch, Bob (POL); Taylor, Damali (POL); Mazzucco, Thomas (POL); Hamasaki, John (POL); Elias, Cindy (POL); Brookter, Dion-Jay (POL); Campbell, Jayme (POL); Blackman, Sue (LIB); 'Kniha, Paul'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Rosenfield, Ben (CON); '[email protected]'; Krell, Rebekah (ART); '84031-44127205 @requests.muckrock.com'; 'Scott, William (POL)'; Cox, Andrew (POL); Rodriguez, Brian (POL); Andraychak, Michael (POL); Bastian, Alex (DAT); '84162-44435865 @requests.muckrock.com'; Cisneros, Jose (TTX); Buckley, Theresa (TTX); '[email protected]'; '84168-39742724 @requests.muckrock.com'; Carroll, Maryellen (DEM); 84164-62563184. @requests.muckrock.com; Maguire, Tom (MTA); 'Celaya, Caroline'; '84166-59035583 @requsts.muckrock.com'; Reiter, Rob (ADM); Mazzola, Lori (ADM); Miyamoto, Paul (SHF); Kelleher, William (SHF); '[email protected]'; Kelly, Naomi (ADM);, ADMSunshinerequests (ADM); '[email protected]'; 'Megan Bourne'; Campbell, Thomas (FAM); '[email protected]'; . Buick, Jeanne (HRD); Voong, Henry (HRD); Gard, Susan (HRD); Voong, Henry (HRD); '[email protected]'; '84168-39742724 @requests.muckrock.com'; Wilson~ James (SHF); '83876-31149286 @requests.muckrock.com'; Henderson, Paul (DPA); Rosenstein, Diana (DPA); Polk, Mary (DPA); Wargo-Wilson, Stephanie (DPA); Campbell, Jayme (POL); 'cjkohrs' Subject: SOTF - Notice of Appearance to Determine Jurisdiction - Compliance and Amendments Committee; January 28, 2020 Good Afternoon: Notice is hereby given that the Compliance and Amendments Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction pursuant to Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21 (e ). A hearing to review the merits of the complaint will be scheduled on a future date. The Complainant and Respondent are NOT REQUIRED to attend the January 28, 2020, Committee meeting but may attend to provide testimony related to the above listed determinations only. Date: January 28, 2020 Location: City Hall, Room 408 Time: 4:30 p.m. Complaints: P7149 File No. 19091: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mayor London Breed, the Office of the Mayor, Hank Heckel, Sean Elsbemd, Andres Power, Andrea Bruss, Marj on Philhour, Jeff Cretan, Sophia Kittler for allegedly violating Administrative- Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67 .21, 67 .26, 67 .27 and 67 .29-7, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19094: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Linda Gerull and the Department of Technology for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19097: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Public Works for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19109: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against Dept. of Public Health for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19110: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Fire Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19117: Complaint filed by Comad Wu against the Public Utilities Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance) Sections 67 .25 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19118: Complaint filed by Paul Ondik against the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .21 (b ), by failing to respond to a records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19119: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Department of Technology for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.2l(b), 67.26 and 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19120: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.2l(b)(c), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner; failing to justify withholding of records and failing to provide assistance. File No. 19121: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(k), 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner; withholding more than the minimum and failing to justify withholding. File No. 19122: Complaint filed by Anonymous against City Librarian Michael Lambert and the Public Library for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19123: Complaint filed by Paul Kniha against the San Francisco Municipal Executive Association for allegedly violating Administrative Code, (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. Pisa File No. 19125: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Controller's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c)(k), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for records in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record, failing to j-ustify withholdings with clear reference to exemption statute or case law and failing to provide an exact copy of records. File No. 19126: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against the San Francisco Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19128: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Chief William Scott, Sgt. Brian Rodriguez, Michael Andraychak and the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25, 67.26, 67.27 and 67.29-7(a), by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19130: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against Chesa Boudin and the District Attorney's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67 .21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19131: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jose Cisneros, Theresa Buckley and the Treasurer's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.24, 67 .26, 67 .27, by failing to respond to a request for records in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record. File No. 19132: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Mary Ellen Carroll and the Department of Emergency Management for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19i33: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Tom Maguire and the San Francisco Municipal Transport~tion Agency for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19134: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Rob Reiter and City Hall Building Management for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21and67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. · File No. 19135: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Vicki Hennessy andthe Sheriffs Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .21 and 67 .25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely arid/or complete manner. File No. 19136: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Naomi Kelly and the Office of the City Administrator for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .21 and 67.25 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19137: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Thomas P. Campbell and the Fine Arts Museum for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.25 and 67.34 by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. pj51 File No. 19138: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the University of California, Regents of the University of California, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. ·File No. 19139: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jeanne Buick, Henry Voong and the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.26 arid 67.27(a), by withholding public records. File No. 19140: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19141: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Chief William Scott and the Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manrier. File No. 19143: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, James Wilson and the Sheriffs Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.24, 67.25 and 67.27, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19144: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Department of Police Accountability for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections, 67.21, 67.24, 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19145: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .5 and 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19146: Complaint filed by Anonymous against City Librarian Michael Lambert and the Public Library for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67 .21, by failing to request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner. The agenda and packet material for the meeting is available online at the following link: Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724 . /K()• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form. The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998: Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members ofthe public are not required to provide personal identifj;ing information when they PTs2 Leger, Cheryl (BOS) From: Anonymous Ms. Leger, Can the Respondents provide the 2171 pg response directly to you on a thumbdrive if they have not done so? It is too large for me to send. The parts of that document thatneed to be in the File are: 1. pl-517, 2. p1220-1640, 3. p1904-2171 The rest of it is just board of supervisors agendas, election ballots, and such, and will not be in di?pute. NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signaiure.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a' binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosab/e public records. Sincerely, Anonymous Pi53 Leger, Cheryl (BOS) From: Anonymous If I use my single automatic complainant's continuance (since I am before 5 days) on 19120, is there any chance you can notice and schedule 19121 instead (which would be next)? If you are unable to schedule 19121 on Feb 18 instead, then I will not be asking for continuance for 19120. 19121 is more important at this point to try to resolve ASAP for me. NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not lil1'Jited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records. Sincerely, Anonymous pj54 I (BOS) From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2020 2:12 PM To: [email protected]; Megan Bourne; 80695-54486849 @requests.muckrock.com; Cityattorney; Cote, John (CAT); Coolbrith, Elizabeth (CAT); JOHN HOOPER; Corgas; Christopher (ECN); Thompson, Marianne (ECN); Goldberg, Jonathan (DPW); Steinberg, David (DPW); S; McHale, Maggie (HRD); Voong, Henry (HRD); Callahan, Micki (HRD) Subject: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Complaint Committee: February 18, 2020; 5:30 p.m. Good Afternoon: You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee. Date: February 18, 2020 Location: City Hall, Room 408 Time: 5:30 p.m. File No. 19113: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jason Moment, Thomas Campbell and the Fine Arts Museum for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 (b )( c)(k), 67.29- 7(a)( c ), 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, CPRA Government Code 6270.5-5, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, failure to retain records, failing to record third party transactions, withholding and failure to justify withholding, failure to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19120: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner; failing to justify withholding of records and failing to provide assistance. · File No. 19061: Complaint filed by John Hooper against the Office of Economic and Workforce Development for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19062: Complaint filed by John Hooper against Public Works for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19140: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner. Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint) Piss For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion in the agenda packet, suppleme:q.tal/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, February 12, 2020. Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724 111..itJ• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors. Customer Service Satisfaction form. The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998. Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosu1;e under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members ofthe public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board ofSupervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members ofthe public submit to the Clerk's Office regardU1g pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members ofthe public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information fi'om these submissions. This means that personal inf01:mation-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board ofSupervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy. Pi56 I (BOS) From: Anonymous This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. pj57 Leger, Cheryl (BOS) From: Anonymous To the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force [for all file numbers listed in subject], CC: Mayor for 20006, City Attorney for 19044 and 19120, SFPD for 19098, DPW for 19097, DT for technical awareness & 19119 CC: Supervisor of Records: I will be refiling every SFAC 67.21(d) petition that you incorrectly denied for every email with BCC recipients for the reasons below. SOTF, you recently ruled in SOTF 19044 that full email headers are at least partially disclosable and must_be minimally withheld and justified. We await the order so that Mr. Herrera's office will produce the 2 emails correctly. However the problem with how the City produces email records goes beyond merely email headers. I ask that this letter be analyzed by the SOTF DCA in any complaints listed above not yet ruled upon. We have recently discovered that one of the City's mechanism of producing PDFs from Outlook emails is unlawfully withholding even the names of recipients of emails, when those recipients are in the BCC (Blind Carbon Copy). This mechanism is known as Outlook's "Memo Style" and is widely used by City agencies in producing emails. You have been told by certain City respondents that, by providing the PDF printouts of emails, they are in fact providing everything that is usually visible in Outlook and/or typed in by a City employee. Similar arguments were made by the Supervisor of Records. They are all wrong, at least when using Memo Style. The PDF printout includes less than even the Outlook view because the BCCs are hidden from the PDF: https://support.office.com/en-us/article/print-emails~showing-bcc-recipients-a80e4965-3b8d-41bf-ba22- 722f3b19f95c "There is no way to print an email message directly within Outlook that shows recipients included in the Bee (blind carbon copy) field." When City employees send emails with BCC's, the identity of those recipients is no less public information than the identity of To and CC recipients. The identity of BCC recipients is not an information security record. The BCC names were typed in by a City employee and are not computer-generated metadata. The BCC names are visible on the Outlook screen. The BCC names can only be produced by the sender of the record as that is the only account that retains the BCC (Recipients and certain intermediate servers cannot see and do not retain the BCC). All of the City's justifications, GC 6254.19 and 6253.9(f), are false and inapplicable. We have now found an example of this. The Mayor's Office produced the following emails by printing them to PDF via Outlook: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /LaRoe Forward.pdf, Pisa https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /Aponte Request.pdf, https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia files/2020/02/07 /Glen Smith Forward.pdf Each of those records, as the Mayor's Office has admitted, included BCC recipients and were sent of course by the Mayor's Office. But due to the City's choice of production, the BCC identities have been unlawfully withheld from the record produced to the public. Mr. Heckel is working on producing these records correctly, but our concern is not merely these 3 emails. We, your Task Force, and the general public cannot even know which emails have unlawfully had their BCC identities withheld. We are now re-auditing ~40 agencies regarding whether any of their mis-produced PDF emails have any BCC's not produced to us. If an agency refuses to respond or continues to withhold BCC identities as exempt falsely under Gov Code 6254.19 or 6253.9(f), we will add willful violation allegations. The City, even if not specifically asked for headers or still refusing to produce them in contradiction to SOTF 19044, must use at least the "PDFMaker" form of PDF creation (as some agencies already do} which appears to preserve the BCC identities - they must do this for every request for email, not just mine, if any of those emails have BCCs. will be verifying the City's correct production for all other persons as well; if they have failed, I will find out whether those requestors know that information was withheld from them. There is no lawful authority to withhold the names of the BCC-ed recipients and to not even inform requestors that the BCC was withheld. In doing so, the City is claiming a right to keep secret not just the headers themselves but identities of government officials in communications and even the existence of secret communications. Any agency that produces a BCC-ed email in Memo Style form has violat~d SFAC 67.26 and 67.27: non-exempt parts of records were withheld, non-minimally, and the metadata exemption justifications given have no relevancy to the sec identities. NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records. Sincerely, Anonymous pf59 Leger, Cheryl (BOS) From: Anonymous < [email protected] > ·Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 5:20 PM To: SOTF, (BOS); Cityattorney; PRR FAMSF Subject: SOTF Feb 18 Meeting - Files 19113 & 19120 Attachments: signature.asc SOTF and Respondents, At 5:17pm I was informed that the meeting was cancelled due to lack of quorum by SOTF Admin over the conf call phone. If this is untrue, please email back and I will rejoin the conference call. I am still able to present today. I have not received the cancellation email - Mr. Young could you send it to me again? NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment}, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosab/e public records . . Sincerely, Anonymous . PToO. I (BOS) From: Anonymous .. 19044, 19091, 19108 - 3 Cases won at full SOTF awaiting Order of Determination " 19047 - 1 Case won with OD, needs Compliance Committee review due to Mayor's non-compliance .. 19103, 19112 - 2 Waiting Full SOTF {Committee completed) " >60 cases waiting Committee - 19097, 19098 (continued), 19113, 19119 (next), 19120, 19121, 19124, 19125, 19127, 19128, 19131,19132, 19133, 19134,19136,19137, 19139,19141,19143,19144,20005,20006,20009, 20014,20015,20016,20017,20018,20019,20020,20021,20022,20024,20025,20026,20027,20028,20030, 20031,20032,20033,20036, 20037,20039,20040,20041,20042,20043,20044,20045,20046,20047,20048, 20049,20050, 20051,20052,20053,20054,20057,20059 Thanks. NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment}, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disc/osable public records. Sincerely, Anonymous PTG1 Leger, Cheryl (BOS) From: Anonymous < [email protected] > Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 9:32 PM To: SOTF, (BOS) Subject: Fw: Further Waiver for certain SOTF deadlines Attachments: signature.asc ------Original Message------On Saturday, March 21, 2020 9:29 PM, Anonymous SOTF Files: 19089, 19091, 19105, 19108, 20002, 20007, 20039, 20059, 19097, 19098, 19103, 19103, 19112, 19119, 19120, 19124, 19128, 19141, 19143,20005,20006,20006,20009,20014,20052,20053, 20054,20057 This is a further written waiver until the latest of: [April 7, 2020, expiration of Order of the Health Officer No. C19-07, or expiration of paragraph 1 of Executive Order N-33-20, all as may be extended], of any CPRA/Sunshine deadlines (incl. SOTF's own 67.21(e) 45-day deadline to issue a determination) that would normally occur between now and such date in only the above list of SOTF cases, EXCEPT the following which are either long-standing and with which continued non-compliance is unrelated to COVID-19 work, or for which the information is itself about COVID-19: • This waiver does not apply to SOTF Order 19047 or SOTF 19044. • The waiver does not apply to requests about COVID-19 itself sent to DEM, DPH, or the Mayor. • This waiver does not apply to agencies whose employees are not listed in the TO. Note that while I am waiving these deadlines, SOTF may or may not be also waiving your deadlines and I have no control over that. The following are not waived: • Any violations, including timeliness, occurring prior to March 17, 2020, or after the end of the waiver date. • Any non-timeliness violations. • Failure by the City to retain and refrain from destroying during the pendency of the waiver any responsive records. • Any unilateral decision by the City that purports to exempt itself or any of its agencies, officers, or employees from the CPRA or Sunshine Ordinance or any of its provisions. Stay safe out there~ NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include Pt62 any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records. Sincerely, Anonymous ------Original Message ------On Monday, March 16, 2020 7:17 PM, Anonymous SOTF- This may be filed in cases SOTF 19044, 19047, 19089, 19091, 19105, 19108, 20002,20007,20039,20059, 19097, 19098, 19103, 19103, 19112, 19119, 19120, 19124, 19128, 19141, 19143,20005,20006,20006,20009,20014,20052,20053,20054,20057 NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records. Sincerely, Anonymous ------Original Message------On Monday, March 16, 2020 7:11 PM, Anonymous Listed SOTF Respondents and SOTF itself, This is a written waiver until April 7, 2020 of any CPRA/Sunshine deadlines (incl. SOTF's own 67.21{e) 45-day deadline to issue a determination) that would normally occur between now and April 7, 2020 in the attached list of SOTF cases, EXCEPT the following which are either long-standing and with which continued non-compliance is unrelated to COVID-19 work, or for which the information is itself about COVID-19: • This waiver does not apply to SOTF Order 19047, which the Mayor's Office has never complied with, in providing minimally redacted ICS files of certain calendars entries. • This waiver does not apply to SOTF 19044, which would require minimal redaction of the two emails in that case by the City Attorney's office pursuant to SOTF's motion in January (which has not issued yet as an Order). • The waiver does not apply to requests about COVID-19 itself sent to DEM, DPH, or the Mayor. PTs3 • This waiver does not apply to agencies whose employees are not listed in the TO. Note that while I am waiving these deadlines, SOTF may or may not be also waiving your deadlines and I have no control over that. The following are not waived: • Any violations, including timeliness, occurring prior to March 17, 2020, or after April 7, 2020. (note the deadlines are merely being delayed until April 7, not some n days after April 7). • Any non-timeliness violations. • Failure by the City to retain and refrain from destroying during the pendency of the waiver any responsive records. • Any unilateral decision by the City that purports to exempt itself or any of its agencies, officers, or employees from the CPRA or Sunshine Ordinance or any of its provisions. NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosab/e public records. Sincerely, Anonymous PT64 Leger, Cheryl (BOS) From: Anonymous All my waivers for timeliness of CPRA/Sunshine Ordinance responses are now terminated as of June 3, 2020. NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records. Sincerely, Anonymous ------Original Message------On Monday, April 6, 2020 8:34 PM, Anonymous SOTF Files: 19089, 19091, 19105, 19108, 20002, 20007, 20039, 20059, 19097, 19098, 19103, 19103, 19112,19119, 19120,19124, 19128,19141, 19143,20005, 20006, 20006,20009,20014,20052,20053, 20054,20057 This is a further written waiver until the latest of: [May 3, 2020, expiration of Order of the Health Officer C19-07b, or expiration of paragraph 1 of Executive Order N-33-20], of any CPRA/Sunshine deadlines (incl. SOTF's own 67.21(e) 45-day deadline to issue a determination) that would normally occur between now and such date in solely the above list of SOTF cases, EXCEPT the following which are either long-standing and with which continued non-compliance is unrelated to COVID-19 work, or for which the information is itself about COVID-19: • This waiver does not apply to SOTF Order 19047 or SOTF 19044. • The waiver does not apply to requests about COVID-19 itself sent to DEM, DPH, or the Mayor or her office. • The waiver does not apply to agencies whose employees are not listed in the TO. Note that while I am waiving these deadlines, SOTF may or may not be also waiving your deadlines and I have no control over that. The following are not waived: .. Any violations, including timeliness, occurring prior to March 17, 2020, or after the end of the waiver date. PT65 • Any non-timeliness violations. • Failure by the City to retain and refrain from destroying during the pendency of the waiver any responsive records. • Any unilateral decision by the City that purports to exempt itself or any of its agencies, officers, or employees from the CPRA or Sunshine Ordinance or any of its provisions. I do not believe Paragraph 2 of Executive Order N-35-20 or Paragraph 5 of the Mayor's March 13 Second Supplement or any other unilateral suspensions by the government of its own transparency obligations are legally valid and will challenge them if they are used. NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records. Sincerely, l Anonymous ------Original Message------On Saturday, March 21, 2020 9:29 PM, Anonymous SOTF Files: 19089, 19091, 19105, 19108, 20002, 20007, 20039, 20059, 19097, 19098, 19103, 19103, 19112,19119, 19120,19124,19128, 19141,19143,20005,20006,20006, 20009,20014,20052,20053,20054,20057 This is a further written waiver until the latest of: [April 7, 2020, expiration of Order of the Health Officer No. C19-07, or expiration of paragraph 1 of Executive Order N-33-20, all as may be extended], of any CPRA/Sunshine deadlines (incl. SOTF's own 67.21(e) 45- day deadline to issue a determination) that would normally occur between now and such date in only the above list of SOTF cases, EXCEPT the following which are either long-standing and with which continued non-compliance is unrelated to COVID-19 work, or for which the information is itself about COVID-19: • This waiver does not apply to SOTF Order 19047 or SOTF 19044. • The waiver does not apply to requests about COVID-19 itself sent to DEM, DPH, or the Mayor. • This waiver does not apply to agencies whose employees are not listed in the TO. Note that while I am waiving these deadlines, SOTF may or may not be also waiving your deadlines and I have no control over that. The following are not waived: Piss • Any violations, including timeliness, occurring prior to March 17, 2020, or after the end of the waiver date. • Any non-timeliness violations. • Failure by the City to retain and refrain from destroying during the pendency of the waiver any responsive records. • Any unilateral decision by the City that purports to exempt itself or any of its agencies, officers, or employees from the CPRA or Sunshine Ordinance or any of its provisions. Stay safe out there~ NOTE; Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records. Sincerely, Anonymous ------Original Message------On Monday, March 16, 2020 7:17 PM, Anonymous SOTF- This may be filed in cases SOTF 19044, 19047, 19089, 19091, 19105,19108,20002,20007, 20039,20059, 19097, 19098, 19103, 19103,19112, 19119, 19120, 19124,19128, 19141,19143,20005, 20006,20006,20009,20014,20052,20053,20054,20057 NOTE; Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disclosable public records. Sincerely, Anonymous ------Original Message------ PT67 On Monday, March 16, 2020 7:11 PM, Anonymous Listed SOTF Respondents and SOTF itself, This is a written waiver until April 7, 2020 of any CPRA/Sunshine deadlines (incl. SOTF's own 67.21(e) 45- day deadline to issue a determination) that would normally occur between now and April 7, 2020 in the attached list of SOTF cases, EXCEPT the following which are either long-standing and with which continued non compliance is unrelated to COVID-19 work, or for which the information is itself about COVID-19: • This waiver does not apply to SOTF Order 19047, which the Mayor's Office has never complied with, in providing minimally redacted ICS files of certain calendars entries. • This waiver does not apply to SOTF 19044, which would require minimal redaction of the two emails in that case by the City Attorney's office pursuant to SOTF's motion in January (which has not issued yet as an Order). • The waiver does not apply to requests about COVID-19 itself sent to DEM, DPH, or the Mayor. • This waiver does not apply to agencies whose employees are not listed in the TO. Note that while I am waiving these deadlines, SOTF may or may not be also waiving your deadlines and I have no control over that. The following are not waived: • Any violations, including timeliness, occurring prior to March 17, 2020, or after April 7, 2020. (note the deadlines are merely being delayed until April 7, not some n days after April 7). • Any non-timeliness violations. • Failure by the City to retain and refrain from destroying during the pendency of the waiver any responsive records. • Any unilateral decision by the City that purports to exempt itself or any of its agencies~ officers, or employees from the CPRA or Sunshine Ordinance or any of its provisions. NOTE: Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. Jn no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature (signature.asc attachment), if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the government all be disc/osable public records. Sincerely, Anonymous Pf69 Leger, Cheryl (BOS) From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 12:33 PM To: Steinberg, David (DPW); [email protected]; 76435-93915115 @requests.muckrock.com; Cox, Andrew (POL); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Buell, Mark (REC); [email protected]; Cote, John (CAT); BAUMGARTNER, MARGARET (CAT); CityAttorney (CAT); Licudine-Barker, Arlene (TIS); Gerull, Linda (TIS); Makstman, Michael (TIS); [email protected]; [email protected]; Cote, John (CAT); CityAttorney (CAT); WALSH, MOIRA (CAT); CLARK, JANA (CAT); SNODGRASS, WAYNE (CAT); SHEN, ANDREW (CAT); RUSSI, BRAD (CAT); RIES, DAVID (CAT); CABRERA, ALICIA (CAT); ZAREFSKY, PAUL (CAT); MINTY, SCOTT (CAT); GIVNER, JON (CAT); COOLBRITH, ELIZABETH (CAT); BUTA, ODAYA (CAT); [email protected]; Hirsch, Bob (POL); Taylor, Damali (POL); De Jesus, Peterkent (POL); Hamasaki, John (POL); [email protected]; Brookter, Dion-Jay (POL); Campbell, Jayme (POL); Patterson, Kate (LIB); Lambert, Michael (LIB); Krell, Rebekah (ART); 84031-44127205 @requests.muckrock.com; Cox, Andrew (POL); Scott, William (POL); Rodriguez, Brian (POL); Andraychak, Michael (POL); SGM; Bastian, Alex (DAT); Boudin, Chesa (DAT); [email protected]; Cisneros, Jose (TTX); 84182-48147675 @requests.muckrock.com; , ADMSunshinerequests (ADM); Kelly, Naomi (ADM); [email protected]; [email protected]; Voong, Henry (HRD); Buick, Jeanne (HRD); McHale, Maggie (HRD); [email protected]; Scott, William (POL); [email protected]; Miyamoto, Paul (SHF); [email protected]; Youngblood, Stacy (POL); [email protected] Subject: SOTF - Waiver of the 45-Day Rule Dear SOTF Petitioners, Respondents and other Stakeholders: As you most likely know SOTF operations have been delayed over the last few months due to the Covid-19 emergency. The SOTF have started to conduct remote meetings via videoconference and are working to establish procedures to resume all operations including the processing of complaints. While the Sunshine Ordinance requires that certain actions be taken within 45 days, the Covid-19 emergency has forced delays and immense new backlogs for complaint hearings. We write today to ask if you are willing to waive the 45 day rule for your complaint. The SOTF intends to resume hearing complaints on a limited basis and complaints will be queued to be heard in the near future. We continue to work to address technical issues posed by remote meetings. We are aware of the time sensitivity of your records requests. Please be assured that the SOTF appreciates the urgency of your matters and the importance of handling them in a timely manner. If you have further questions about your files or have other issues, please feel free to email the SOTF Administrator at the email below. Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors [email protected] Tel: 415-554-7724 Fax: 415-554-5163 PnO www.sfbos.org 11:.0• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form. The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998. Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisca Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy. pf71 Leger, Cheryl (BOS) From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 12:43 PM To: SOTF, (BOS) Cc: Andraychak, Michael (POL); Bastian, Alex (DAT); Steinberg, David (DPW); Licudine Barker, Arlene (TIS); COOLBRITH, ELIZABETH (CAT); COTE, JOHN (CAT); [email protected]; RUSSI, BRAD (CAT); Gerull, Linda (TIS); BAUMGARTNER, MARGARET (CAT); Cox, Andrew (POL); Campbell, Jayme (POL); Scott, William (POL); Youngblood, Stacy (POL); SGM; Makstman, Michael (TIS); Hirsch, Bob (POL); Taylor, Damali (POL); Hamasaki, John (POL); Elias, Cindy (POL); Brookter, Dion-Jay (POL); Lambert, Michael (LIB);, ADMSunshinerequests (ADM); Voong, Henry (HRD); Buick, Jeanne (HRD); Rodriguez, Brian (POL); Scott, William (POL); Cisneros, Jose (TTX); Kelly, Naomi (ADM); [email protected]; Krell, Rebekah (ART); Miyamoto, Paul (SHF); [email protected]; Cityattorney; McHale, Maggie (HRD); [email protected]; [email protected]; Buell, Mark (REC); [email protected]; WALSH, MOIRA (CAT); CLARK, JANA (CAT); SNODGRASS, WAYNE (CAT); SHEN, ANDREW (CAT); RIES, DAVID (CAT); CABRERA, ALICIA (CAT); ZAREFSKY, PAUL (CAT); MINTY, SCOTT (CAT); GIVNER, JON (CAT); BUTA, ODAYA (CAT); De Jesus, Peterkent (POL); Patterson, Kate (LIB); Boudin, Chesa (DAT); [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. San Francisco City Attorney PRA Office Room 234 1 Doctor Carlton B Goodlett Place SF, CA 94102 August 18, 2020 This is a follow up to a previous request: SOTF - you may waive the 45 day rule SOLELY for the complaint from this email address (but not any other files). Please confirm with the file number. Filed via MuckRock.com E-mail (Preferred): [email protected] · Upload documents directly: https://accounts.muckrock.com/accounts/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.muckrock.com%2Faccounts%2Flogin%2F %3Fnext%3D%252Faccounts%252Fagency_login%252Fsan-francisco-city-attorney-797%252Fadachi-communications- a ud it-sf-city-atty-a nd-6721c-req uest- 80695 %252 F%253 Fem ail%253Dsotf%252540sfgov .o rg&u rl_a uth_toke n=AAAu FB U DtfkM OfB 1vm HOfva D Htg%3Alk87Vo %3AJjWNQWwlpNW7TOh-W4LCB08TEso Is this email coming to the wrong contact? Something else wrong? Use the above link to let us know. PT72 For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News DEPT MR 80695 411A Highland Ave · Somerville, MA 02144-2516 PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a MuckRock staff member, but is being sent through MuckRock by the above in order to better track, share, and manage public records requests. Also note that improperly addressed (i.e., with the requester's name rather than "MuckRock News" and the department number) requests might be returned as undeliverable. On Aug. 18, 2020: Subject: SOTF - Waiver of the 45-Day Rule Dear SOTF Petitioners, Respondents and other Stakeholders: As you most likely know SOTF operations have been delayed over the last few months due to the Covid-19 emergency. The SOTF have started to conduct remote meetings via videoconference and are working to establish procedures to resume all operations including the processing of complaints. While the Sunshine Ordinance requires that certain actions be taken within 45 days, the Covid-19 emergency has forced delays and immense new backlogs for complaint hearings. We write today to ask if you are willing to waive the 45 day rule for your complaint. The SOTF intends to resume hearing complaints on a limited basis and complaints will be queued to be heard in the near future. We continue to work to address technical issues posed by remote meetings. We are aware of the time sensitivity of your records requests. Please be assured that the SOTF appreciates the urgency of your matters and the importance of handling them in a timely manner. If you have further questions about your files or have other issues, please feel free to email the SOTF Administrator at the email below. Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors [email protected] [CustomerSatisfactionlcon] The Legislative Research Center Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors.and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy. pf73 On July 16, 2020: Subject: RE: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit {SF City Atty) and 67.21{c) request City Attorney's Office: On Oct 17, 2019, you published public record "Records sent on 10.17 .2019 for 09.23.2019 Muckrock PRA request.pdf" for the Sept 20, 2019 request from this email address. It appears to contain a person's driver's license number on at least page 51 of attachment "2019.05.16 Notice of Motion & Motion for Retur..pdf" to the above PDF. {There may be other identifiers elsewhere as well) Did you intend to redact that and anything else in these records? NOTE: Please be certain you have properly redacted all of your responses. Once you send them to us, there is no going back. The email address sending this request is a PUBLICLY-VIEWABLE MAILBOX. All of your responses {including all responsive records) may be instantly and automatically available to the public online via the MuckRock.com FOIA service used to issue this request {though the requester Is an anonymous user, not a representative of MuckRock). Nothing herein is legal, IT, or professional advice of any kind. The author disclaims all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to all warranties of merchantability or fitness. In no event shall the author be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or any other damages whatsoever. The digital signature, if any, in this email is not an indication of a binding agreement or offer; it merely authenticates the sender. Please do not include any confidential information, as I intend that these communications with the City all be disclosable public records. Sincerely, Anonymous On March 10, 20.20: Subject: SOTF - Complaint Committee: March 17, 2020 - CANCELLED Good Morning: Due to concerns related to the Coronavirus the Complaint Committee meeting scheduled for March 17, 2020, has been . CANCELLED. We will be in touch to reschedule your matters accordingly. Thank you. Victor Young Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724 The Legislative Research Center On March 5, 2020: Subject: Re: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Complaint Committee: March 17, 2020; 5:30 p.m. Re #19061 and #19062: I apologize, but I will not be able to atttend the 3/17 meeting. For the record, I was prepared to speak at the Feb 18 meeting which was cancelled for lack of a quorum. Please let me know when the next Complaint Commmittee meeting is expected. John Hooper On March 5, 2020: Subject: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Complaint Committee: March 17, 2020; 5:30 p.m. Good Morning: You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals from a Task Force Committee. Date: March 17, 2020 Location: City Hall, Room 408 Time: 5:30 p.m. File No. 19113: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Jason Moment, Thomas Campbell and the Fine Arts Museum for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b){c)(k), 67.29-7(a)(c), 67.25, 67.26, 67.27, CPRA Government Code 6270.5-5, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner, failing to assist, failure to retain records, failing to record third party transactions, withholding and failure to justify withholding, failure to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No.19120: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner; failing to justify withholding of records and failing to provide assistance. File No. 19061: Complaint filed by John Hooper against the Office of Economic and Workforce Development for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. P775 File No. 19062: Complaint filed by John Hooper against Public Works for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19140: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner. Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint) For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure). For inclusion in the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, February 12, 2020. Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724 The Legislative Research Center Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This· means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspett or copy. On Sept. 20, 2019: Subject: California Public Records Act Request: Adachi Communications Audit (SF City Atty) and 67.21(c) request RE: Adachi Communications Audit - 2019-09-20 To Whom It May Concern: **NOTE: Please redact all responses correctly! This is a public mailbox, and all of your responses (including disclosed records) may be automatically and instantly available to the general public on the MuckRock.com service used to issue this request (though I am not a MuckRock representative). Once you send them to us, there is no going back.** I request under the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance {Ordinance) and the California Public Records Act {CPRA) the attached items from City Attorney's office. 7-day 67.21(c) statements are requested for each request as well. PT76 Similar requests have been of the Mayor, SFPD, SF Police Commission, etc. Sincerely, Anonymous Filed via Mucl For mailed responses, please address (see note): MuckRock News DEPT MR 80695 411A Highland Ave Somerville, MA 02144-2516 PLEASE NOTE: This request is not filed by a Mucl pf77 Leger, Cheryl (BOS) From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Monday, September 7, 2020 2:34 PM To: '[email protected]'; 'Cote, John (CAT)'; COOLBRITH, ELIZABETH (CAT); Cox, Andrew (POL); '[email protected]'; Ray Hartz Jr; [email protected]; Buell, Mark (REC); '[email protected]'; Lin-Wilson, Tiffany (REC); [email protected]; McHale, Maggie (HRD); '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Youngblood, Stacy (POL) Subject: SOTF - Notice of Appearance - Complaint Committee: September 15, 2020, 5:30 p.m. Good Afternoon: Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee (Coi:nmittee) of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (Task Force) shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force. Date: September 15, 2020 Location: Remote Meeting Time: 5:30 p.m. Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing. Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing. Complaints: File No. 19098: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Police Department for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.26 and 67.27, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. File No. 19120: Complaint filed by Anonymous against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(c), 67.26, 67.27, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner; failing to justify withholding of records and failing to provide assistance. File No. 19101: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against President Mark Buell and the Joint Zoo Committee for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67 .15( d), and 67 .16, by failing to place the submitted 150-word summaries of Public Comment into the meeting minutes (Meeting of August 15, 2019). File No. 19140: Complaint filed by Stephen Malloy against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordjnance), Sections 67.21and 67.25, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner. p-f1a File No. 19145: Complaint filed by Chris Kohrs against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.5 and 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner. Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint) For a document to be considered, it must be received at least four (4) working days before the hearing. For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, September 10, 2020. Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724 It.If!:;• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form. The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998. Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are riot tequired to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oroi communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.