Untitled

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I hereby request the following records:

1. All contracts, and any communications concerning the contract negotiations with, any of the following businesses or individuals:
a. Efren Martinez
b. Christian Zarate
c. Lan Wan Enterprise
d. CR&R Incorporated
e. Zack Oweis
f. BFP Fire Protection
g. Byron Fedrico
h. Rocket33
i. Rooket Fitness
j. BMP Fire Protection
k. Norman A. Traub Associates
l. John Capen
m. Omnia Industry
n. Natural Compassionate Center
o. All Done Management Group, Inc.
p. J316 Building
q. Northstar
r. Antonio Jose Martinez
s. David Ronnenberg
t. Arnold Alvarez-Glasman
u. Municipal Waste Solutions
v. Inframark
w. any towing company
x. any vehicle repair company
y. any technology company

2. All bids, for any services or goods, related to the construction of a public swimming pool from 2017 to the present.
3. All communications concerning any services or goods, related to the construction of a public swimming pool from 2017 to the present.
4. Any and all complaints made about Nita McKay.
5. Any and all complaints made about Ricardo Reyes.
6. All pleadings filed on behalf of Nita McKay, in any legal proceeding, including but not limited to any restraining order matter.
7. All lawsuits against the city of Huntington Park, for discrimination of any sort against an employee.
8. All lawsuits against the city of Huntington Park, for harassment of any sort against an employee.
9. All lawsuits against the city of Huntington Park, for retaliation on any basis against an employee.
10. All communications between Efren Martinez and any Huntington Park employee or elected official.
11. All communications between Nita McKay and any other individual, concerning or about Efren Martinez.
12. All audits or budgets, or analysis concerning Huntington Park's budget for any fiscal year between 2017 to 2025.
13. Any analysis done on the cost benefit result of building a public swimming pool in Huntington Park.
14. Any financial analysis done on using private contactors vs. employees in any agency from 2018 to the present.
15. Any and all policies and procedures used by the city's employees on how to prevent age discrimination against a public employee.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

In the event that there are fees, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 calendar days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Annette Morasch

Counsel,

This email serves as a meet and confer effort to resolve this matter without resort to potentially lengthy and expensive litigation. If the City refuses to produce the previously-requested documents, I will file a petition for writ of mandate to compel the City to produce the records. We will also be seeking attorneys' fees and costs.

The PRA was enacted for the purpose of increasing freedom of information by giving members of the public access to records in the possession of local agencies. The California Legislature found this right of access to be "a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state." (Gov't Code section 6250.) This right was confirmed and expanded upon by the people of California when we passed an amendment to our Constitution, securing a "right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business." (Cal. Const., art. 1, Section 3, subd.(b)(1).)
It is understandable why your firm would not want to produce any of the contracts requested, as your firm is the one who likely "negotiated" the contracts between on the one hand, Efren Martinez, whom your firm and your firm's wives, contributed tens of thousands of dollars to his campaign. It is further understandable why your firm would not want to respond to this request, as your firm is a subject of this request. There is obviously a conflict of interest between your firm, and the public's interest in transparency and disclosure on clearly relevant and discoverable contracts. However, even though your firm is pretending the City does not have to respond to a legitimate request, the City has no reasonable or lawful basis of objecting simply because a citizen has requested more than five contracts, which you state should be the maximum amount of contracts the public is entitled to.
According to the League of California Cities and well established case law, contracts with local agencies are disclosable public records due to the public's right to determine whether public resources are being spent for the benefit of the community as a whole or for the benefit of only a limited few. (For example, for the benefit of your firm.) Cal. State Univ., Fresno Ass'n, Inc. v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 810, 833. Local agency contracts for construction of public works and procurement of goods and non-professional services are typically awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder through a competitive bidding process. Pub. Contract Code, Section 22038. These bids are public records and disclosable as soon as they are opened.
Other local agency contracts for acquisition of professional services or disposition of property are awarded to the successful proposer through a competitive process. Documents containing the names of contractors applying for pre-qualification status are public records and must be disclosed. Pub. Contract Code Section 20101, subd. (a). The PRA requires the disclosure of the contents of real estate appraisals, or engineering or feasibility estimates, and evaluations made for or by a local agency relative to the acquisition of property, or to prospective public supply and construction contracts. Gov't Code Section 6254(h). The records request the public seeks here are contracts which already have all terms agreed upon. The contracts are discoverable. Id.

California has a strong public policy in favor of disclosure of public records, and precludes local agencies from protecting most business information. California courts have consistently held that when individuals or businesses voluntarily enter into the public sphere, they diminish their privacy interests. Cal. State Univ., Fresno Ass'n, supra 90 CalApp. 4th at 834; Braun v. City of Taft (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 332, 347; San Gabriel Tribune v. Superior Court, 143 Cal.App.3d 762, 781.

Moreover, contracts are not overly burdensome to obtain. After all, shouldn't your firm have ready access to all contracts which your firm negotiated? If your firm does not maintain the requested contracts, it is arguably malpractice. The City is also required to maintain all of the contracts, which should be easily accessible through the Finance Department. After all, how would a City enforce the terms of a contract if the City does not have ready access to the contracts?

Should Huntington Park not respond with all requested documents within the legally allowable time frame, I will assume the City is uninterested in resolving this matter without court intervention. I will cause to be filed a writ of mandate to compel the City to comply with the requests, and I will seek attorneys' fees and costs against the City. Then you can explain why you cost the City thousands of dollars by not following the law.

Thank you,
Law Office of Annette Morasch, APC
5701 W. Slauson Ave., Suite 210
Culver City, CA 90230
(323) 791-6276
annette@amoraschlaw.com

It has now been 16 days since I sent a follow up email concerning my requests for documents. I will file a writ to compel the City to release the information, and seek attorneys fees and costs if the records are not produced by February 5, 2021, end of business.

Dear Ms. Zamora, Mr. Sergio Infanzon and Gloria Ramirez,

I received Ms. Zamora's attached email on January 27, 2021 at 5:11 p.m. Please respond directly through the MuckRock website, so that all communications and documents may be accessible by the public. The City's prior response was handled by the City's law firm, Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin, so it is odd that Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin is not responding to my communications directly again.

The City states that no one received my January 11, 2021 communication. This is strange, as my January 11, 2021 communication was in the direct communication chain of the City's response saying it did not receive my response.

The City now asks me to "narrow down [my] request to those items you would like to receive first then we can expand your request." I will not do that. I am requesting all of the information. If the City needs an extension of time, it needs to state that it needs an extension of time, and to then follow the procedures under the law.

The contracts requested are easily obtainable through the law firm the City has retained. Please contact Maxine Caudillo
mcaudillo@agclawfirm.com,
Executive Assistant to Vincent C. Ewing
Legal Assistant to Gloria V. Ramirez GRamirez@agclawfirm.com

AGC - City of Industry, CA 91746
tel 562.699.5500 | fax 562.692.2244

Ms. Ramirez,
Thank you for your letter.

I understand that you would like clarification on requests numbers 7, 8 and 9. I will narrow our request to the past 10 years.
For No. 7-9, we will be satisfied with the production of a complaint face page.
While I empathize with Ms. Zamora's situation, the majority of the requests should be able to be handled by Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin, Attorneys At Law, as the contracts were approved and/or reviewed by the law firm. Similarly, if Alvarez-Glasman & Colvin represented the City in discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation lawsuits, those too should be in the firm's possession.

I do want to point out your letter of today's date says, "Just to reiterate, the City is not opposed to your Request--this is the reason why the City has asked that you narrow down the focus of your Request." This is not what your December 9, 2020 letter to me stated. In that letter, you stated, and I quote, "The City <b> hereby denies your Request in its entirety at this time...If you wish for the City to reconsider your Request, please provide a revised request listing a maximum of five (5) keyword terms...</b >" In your December letter, you did not say anything about documents being released on a rolling basis. You did not state that anything needed clarification. You just said no.

As for the open-ended timing of the response, please note your office has already failed to follow the requirements of Gov't Code 6253. Within 10 days of my original request, Huntington Park was required to "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 your December response, you did not state whether my request called for disclosable documents.

Further, "in unusual circumstances, the time limit prescribed in this section may be extended by written notice by the head of the agency or their designee ...no notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more than <b>14 days</b>. When the agency dispatches the determination, and if the agency determines that the request seeks disclosable public records, the agency <u>shall</u> state the estimated date and time when the records will be made available."

As such, please provide which categories of documents are disclosable, and if not disclosable, the basis of that privilege. Further, please provide a date certain as to when each category of documents will be produced.

Thank you,
Law Office of Annette Morasch, APC
5701 W. Slauson Ave., Suite 210
Culver City, CA 90230
(323) 791-6276
annette@amoraschlaw.com

Please advise when the requested documents will be produced. I understand the City has produced documents to news outlets, and the City should be able to produce those files to me immediately.
Thank you,
Law Office of Annette Morasch, APC
5701 W. Slauson Ave., Suite 210
Culver City, CA 90230
(323) 791-6276
annette@amoraschlaw.com

Hello,
Unfortunately, I cannot put a limit on the request regarding the aquatic center, because I do not know the individuals who pushed through this no-bid contract. I similarly cannot provide email addresses, because the City is the one who knows the email addresses and the identity of everyone who had these communications. The LA Times has requested documents, and the City has produced documents to the LA Times. Please produce those documents because I have requested these several times and have not received a response.

As for the aquatic center, I would like all requests for bids; all communications concerning the selection of the winning contractor; the factors and means used to select the winning contractor; any communications from the State of California concerning the lack of public bidding and need to conduct an open bidding process; the reopening, if any, of the bidding process; any communications by and current or former City Council member concerning the selection process, communications directly with the winning contractor, communications with the unsuccessful contractors.
Thank you,
Law Office of Annette Morasch, APC
5701 W. Slauson Ave., Suite 210
Culver City, CA 90230
(323) 791-6276
annette@amoraschlaw.com

Please advise on the status of this matter.

As you know, your purposeful delay in "rolling out" settlement agreements --which are in your possession because you negotiated the agreements-- are in bad faith. What you do, if you are not engaged in legal malpractice, is you go into your own lawfirm's server, and look into your "Huntington Park" files, and find all of the employee settlement agreements you negotiated and/or have in your posssession, and then produce them here. This would take you approximately ten minutes. It should not take two years and a lawsuit to get the City-and yourselves-to turn over public records.

As for Lan Wan, it is this company's entire work with the City of Huntington Park that is being investigated. What are the tax payers paying for? What is the City and Lan Wan doing with the hundreds of thousands of no-bid dollars? But let's start with this, if we are pretending you will actually do a good-faith and diligent search (which you will not). I will not limit the search to a mere 5 search terms. That's not the way the public records act works. If the City is understaffed, it only has itself (and your firm) to blame. Provide the following:
1. All communications between Nita McKay and LanWan or any of its employees/agents.
2. All communications between Ricardo Reyes and LanWan or any of its employees/agents.
3. All communications between anyone and LanWan or any of its employees/agents, concerning or about: Edwin Aragon, Barbara Rodriguez, Catalina Peraza, Christina Dixon, Teri Garcia.
4. All communications between anyone and LanWan or any of its employee/agents, which include any directive to watch Huntington Park employees' computer useage, or internet useage.
5. All communications with LanWan or any of its employees/agents, which include any of the following words or phrases: Edwin; Aragon; Barbara; Rodriguez; Catalina; Peraza; Christina; Dixon; Garcia; delete; deletion; erase; hotmail; personal email; personal; watch; report; tell me; yahoo; gmail; Efren; Martinez; public records; public records act; arrest; corruption; fee; fees; quote; bid.