Maywood Police

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (California Government Code §§ 6250), I hereby request the following records:

(1) Any document showing the start and end employment dates of Frank Hauptmann;

(2) Any document identifying the name of each city employee employed by the Maywood Police Department from 2008 to the date the Police Department was disbanded;

(3) All emails or memorandums to or from the following: Jimmy Rubio, Frank Garcia;

(4) Any document involving Craig Junginger.

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,

Gene O’Reilly

Ms. Cabrera,

It appears that you saying that your City Attorney told you that the City of Maywood does not have any records identifying former Maywood City employees, nor did the City of Maywood retain public records generated by former City of Maywood employees, or concerning former Maywood City employees. That's quite remarkable.

As you know, public access to government records is a constitutional right and an important oversight duty of every citizen. The California Public Records Act (PRA) provides for recovery of attorney's fee's to a prevailing plaintiff in Public Records Act litigation. Further, injunctive relief is available to restrain a government agency from violating the law.

The City of Maywood has already exceeded the statutory ten day limit to provide access to the requested government records. A free society must be able to supervise the activities of the government. It appears that the City is inviting litigation. It would be unfortunate if Maywood taxpayers had to pay legal fee's trying to defend the indefensible.

Please take notice, that once a petition is filed in Superior Court to compel the City's compliance with the Public Records Act, recovery of litigation costs and attorney's fee's will be sought under the PRA, even if the City provides the records in response to litigation. As you know, within PRA litigation, the courts have determined a plaintiff has prevailed when the agency provides the records in response to litigation.

I take your email as a "final decision" that the City is refusing to provide the requested government records.

At this point, the City still has an opportunity to avoid Public Records Act litigation by promptly providing the requested records. Please let me know right away if you change your mind. As I said earlier, once a verified petition is filed in Superior Court to compel the city's compliance with the Public Records Act, recovery of litigation costs and attorney's fee's will be sought along with a permanent injunction applying to future Public Records Act requests.

Thank you.

A written Public Records Act request was submitted to the Maywood City Clerk on November 30, 2016 requesting documents identifying former City of Maywood Police Department employees, dates of employment, emails/or memorandums to or from or concerning Frank Garcia or Jimmy Rubio or Craig Junginger.

Nearly a month later, and well beyond the statutory ten day deadline for the city to provide the requested records, on December 27, 2016, Ms. Grace Cabrera responded on behalf of the City and said that the city did not have any such records (after purportedly consulting with the City Attorney).

Ms. Cabrera's claim that the City of Maywood does not have any records identifying former City of Maywood employees or their dates of employment is incredulous. Ms. Cabrera suggested I contact the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to request City of Maywood records without explaining why the County Sheriff's Department would be in possession of records concerning former City of Maywood employees. Several State and Federal laws require the City of Maywood to maintain records related to current and former city employees. The City's response that it does not have records or documents identifying former City of Maywood employees, their dates of employment, and records related to those employees is simply not believable.

Access to information about the conduct of the public's business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in the state. It is a right under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the California Constitution. A free society must have access to public records in order to supervise the activities of the government. The City of Maywood's obstruction of this fundamental right is an unfortunate example of corrupt government. It is also yet another stain on the City of Maywood.

California Government Code Section 6253.1(a) requires the City of Maywood to assist me in identifying records and information responsive to my request. Government Code Section 6253(b) requires the City of Maywood to promptly provide access to the requested records. Government Code Section 6253(d) prohibits the City of Maywood from using the ten day period to delay access to records. Government Code 6253(a) prohibits the City of Maywood from withholding records when a portion of the record contains exempt information.

A requestor of public records may bring an action seeking mandamus, injunctive relief or declaratory relief under Government Code sections 6258 or 6259 (Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) 28 Cal.4th 419, 423).

Prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees. A plaintiff need not obtain all of the requested records in order to be the prevailing party in litigation (Los Angeles Times v. Alameda Corridor Transp. Auth. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1391-1392). A plaintiff is considered the prevailing party if the lawsuit ultimately motivated the agency to provide the requested records (Roberts v. City of Palmdale (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469, 482; Belth v. Garamendi (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 896, 898).

The City of Maywood's response that it is not in possession of employee records that both state and federal laws require the city to keep is simply not believable.

If the City provides the requested records prior to the commencement of public records act litigation, recovery of litigation costs and attorney's fee's will not be pursued. However, once a verified petition is filed with the superior court, all attorney's fees, costs of litigation and injunctive relief available under law will be sought. This short period of time right now, before a verified petition is filed with the superior court is the City's last opportunity to prevent litigation.

-------------
If another destination is more appropriate for this appeal or if formal appeal options exist for this agency, provision of such would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I have not received communication from your City Attorney subsequent to my pre-litigation demand. THIS email address is the email to communicate regarding my Public Records Act Requests.

I am not seeking peace officer personnel files. I requested the following on November 30, 2016:

"(1) Any document showing the start and end employment dates of Frank Hauptmann;"

"(2) Any document identifying the name of each city employee employed by the Maywood Police Department from 2008 to the date the Police Department was disbanded;"

"(3) All emails or memorandums to or from the following: Jimmy Rubio, Frank Garcia;"

"(4) Any document involving Craig Junginger."

None of the above requires a Pitchess motion. Refusing to disclose this information for several months is a willful and inexcusable violation of the public records act.

Do yourself and the city's taxpayers a favor and comply with the public records act before the City of Maywood is embarrassed by yet another scandal followed by the disbarment of your city attorney.

Mr. Mayagoitia.

According to the California League of Cities, "Peace officer’s name, employing agency and employment dates" are not exempt from the California Public Records Act and must be disclosed (Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 278.). You cannot require me to file a Pitches Motion in court for non-exempt public records.

http://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Resources-Section/Open-Government/THE-PEOPLES-BUSINESS-2014-Supplemental-Update-and.aspx (page 30).