San Diego DA communications with press member Tina-Desiree Berg

To Whom It May Concern:

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

All emails in possession or control of the DA's office which mention or include as a sender or recipient journalist Tina-Desiree Berg by name or by her email address "tinadberg@yahoo.com".

This includes, but is not limited to, all emails, replies, email chains, and attachments in which Ms. Berg or her email address are mentioned anywhere in the chain or attachment, as well as all emails, replies, email chains, and attachments where Ms. Berg is listed as a sender or recipient (including cc: and bcc:) of any email in the chain. To the extent that computer files or email attachments are included in production, I request that they be included with their original filenames or attachment names and their metadata preserved (filenames and file metadata qualify as "writings" under CPRA).

To the extent that any responsive emails include attachments, I request the attachments to those emails whether or not the attachments mention Ms. Berg.

The date range for this request is Jan 1, 2021 through Jan 10, 2023. If any of these records is available in electronic format, that's the format I need to see them in.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that records involving personal accounts & devices used to conduct public business are public records under the CPRA. Therefore, I request that reasonable searches for responsive records be conducted on all personal accounts and/or devices used by the following DA's office employees: Summer Stephan, Tanya Sierra, Steve Walker, William Hopkins, Makenzie Harvey, Katherine Johnson, Jonah Conley, Justin Bostic, Mathew Grindley, Elvys Cabrera, Luis Pena, Joshua Pittsley, Elliot Shafer, Kelly Stinnette, and Felix Salazar.

As you are no doubt aware, communications with the media are public records under CPRA and are generally not exempt from disclosure as investigative or deliberative records. If you contend that any portion of the records requested is exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law, Government Code § 6253(a) requires segregation and redaction of that material in order that the remainder of the records may be released. If you contend that any express provision of law exists to exempt from disclosure all or a portion of the records I have requested, Government Code § 6253(c) requires that you notify me of the reasons for the determination not later than 10 days from your receipt of this request. Government Code §§ 6253(d) & 6255(b) require that any response to this request that includes a determination that the request is denied, in whole or in part, must be in writing and include the name and title of the person(s) responsible for the City’s response.

Government Code § 6253(d) prohibits the use of the 10-day period, or any provisions of the CPRA or any other law, “to delay access for purposes of inspecting public records.”

In responding to this request, please keep in mind that Article 1, § 3(b)(2) of the California Constitution expressly requires you to broadly construe all provisions that further the public’s right of access, and to apply any limitations on access as narrowly as possible.

If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me, pursuant to Government Code § 6253.1.

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,

Chad Loder

Hello,

I received your response dated Jan 20, 2023 in which you claim there are no responsive documents to my request for communications with press member Tina Desiree-Berg by her name and email.

Please describe, in detail, the search(es) you performed for this request.

This email is a followup to my email from earlier today (Feb 1, 2023) regarding your office's claim that there are no responsive documents to my request for communications with press member Tina Desiree-Berg by her name and email. Herein, I request additional details on your office's search.

Please describe in detail who was involved in the search, what steps each person took as part of the search, and the search terms used by each person. Also explain the document-retention policies applicable to the requested public records. 

This email is a followup to my email from earlier today (Feb 1, 2023) regarding your office's claim that there are no responsive documents to my request for communications with press member Tina Desiree-Berg by her name and email. Herein, I request additional details on your office's search.

Please describe in detail who was involved in the search, what steps each person took as part of the search, and the search terms used by each person. Also explain the document-retention policies applicable to the requested public records. 

Hello,

I am following up on my email of February 1, 2023. It has been over a week since I asked your office to clarify your claim that no responsive records were found for request PRA 23-03.

Please respond promptly. I am becoming concerned that your office is improperly frustrating my access to public records in your possession, first through an improper denial and now through unreasonable delay.

Thanks.

Hello,

What is the retention period for emails, generally? The reason I ask is because I am aware of the existence of emails with the DA's office which match the search terms I provided for PRA 23-03. So there should be responsive records, unless there is some kind of miscommunication, or unless the email retention policy is much shorter than initially understood.

Thank you!