A Word Document and an Excel File - Immediate Disclosure Request
It is a clone of this request.
| Submitted | Jan. 22, 2020 |
| Est. Completion | None |
MuckRock users can file, duplicate, track, and share public records requests like this one. Learn more.
Communications
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
RE: A Word Document and an Excel File - Immediate Disclosure Request (SF City Atty)
Brad Russi, Elizabeth Coolbrith, Dennis Herrera, and the Office of City Attorney:
Below are Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to Brad Russi, Elizabeth Coolbrith, Dennis Herrera, and the Office of City Attorney. Your response is required by Jan 23, 2020. Rolling records responses are requested (SFAC 67.25(d)) if you are unable to immediately produce records. Exact copies of every responsive record are requested (Gov Code 6253(b)) - do not: provide mere URLs, or print and scan electronic records, convert to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color record. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).
This request results out of certain testimony John Cote gave on Jan 21, 2020 to SOTF re: provision of Word and Excel documents.
Cote testified that your office does NOT consider ALL metadata to be a security risk.
Cote testified that your office does give native Excel files with metadata due to your perceived lesser concern about spreadsheet metadata compared to email metadata.
Cote represents your office in these matters, and you cannot go back on those voluntary representations which are recorded in the public hearing.
SOTF and I now know, through your own concessions, that you voluntarily consider some metadata disclosable.
I will now test Cote's claims, and bring intentional and willful violation allegations if Cote's statements were false or are contradicted in any way.
Your non-exhaustive obligations: All withholding of any information must be justified (SFAC 67.27). All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to justification and only the minimal exempt portion of a record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26). Respond to emailed requests (SFAC 67.21(b)). You must notify us of whether or not responsive records exist and/or were withheld for each below request (Gov Code 6253(c), 6255(b)). You must state the name and title of each person responsible for withholding any information (Gov Code 6253(d)). You must do all of this in your response, and you cannot wait until we file complaints.
****** We have no duty to, and we will not again, remind the City of its obligations. Instead, we will file complaints for every Sunshine Ordinance or CPRA violation. We will continue to file complaints until your procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******
1. a copy of the original Word file, in the original electronic format, with all metadata, tracked changes (if recorded), and every other part of Brad Russi's Word file called "n:\govern\as2019\0100505\01415032.doc" I have received what appears to be an ink-signed version of this document before so I know the document itself is generally disclosable. That scanned document refers to this filename, and now I want the original Word file.
2. a copy of the original Excel file, redacted as needed, in the original electronic format, with all metadata, tracked changes (if recorded), and every other part of the Excel file previously produced as a PDF by Elizabeth Coolbrith on Jan 6, 2020 in response to . We know this was an Excel file before being converted to a PDF due to the PDF's own metadata which demonstrates that. REMEMBER: Redaction does not mean necessarily using a black rectangle - instead 67.26 requires you to "delete," "mask," or "segregate" the exempt info (like your work-product privileged info) as long as you clearly indicate the justification.
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
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear requester,
I am writing on behalf of the City Attorney's Office in response to your below request for records. Your request was sent as an "Immediate Disclosure Request" under San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.25(a). But to qualify under that section, the request must be "simple, routine and readily answerable." The Sunshine Ordinance requires shorter response times in those situations where a department is able to quickly locate and produce the requested records. In order to respond to your request, this office will need to conduct an extensive review of our electronic files to find and review responsive records. For this reason, we are not treating your request an "immediate disclosure" request, but as one which is subject to the normally applicable 10-day response time, which will be February 3, 2020. However, we will endeavor to fulfill your request as soon as possible.
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,
[cid:image002.jpg@01D5D11A.D886DE90]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
btw - an "extensive search" for one of the two files that I've explicitly named with a full file path seems to be... a stretch.
Anonymous
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear requester,
We decline to produce the native word file because we believe it could result in the disclosure of confidential work product. For the same reason, we also decline to produce the native excel file, which is in .xls format. As a courtesy, we would be willing to convert the excel from .xls format and send it to you as a .csv file. Doing so will let you search and sort the data similar to if you had it in .xls format, while addressing our work product concerns.
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,
[cid:image002.jpg@01D5DAAB.36DE0380]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Nope. Complaints shall be filed.
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
My second IDR was not complete. Therefore I must re-issue it. I assume you will deny it on the same basis, but to have a proper complaint on that part, I am re-issuing it. Immediate Disclosure Request:
2. a copy of the original Excel file, redacted as needed, in the original electronic format, with all metadata, tracked changes (if recorded), and every other part of the Excel file previously produced as a PDF by Elizabeth Coolbrith on Jan 6, 2020 in response to "RE: California Public Records Act Request: Lists of Records Requests and Complaints - Immediate Disclosure Request (SF City Attorney)". We know this was an Excel file before being converted to a PDF due to the PDF's own metadata which demonstrates that. REMEMBER: Redaction does not mean necessarily using a black rectangle - instead 67.26 requires you to "delete," "mask," or "segregate" the exempt info (like your work-product privileged info) as long as you clearly indicate the justification.
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
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Dear requester,
We are happy to send you this in electronic format. We cannot send it as an .xls file, as we believe that doing so could result in the disclosure of confidential work product that we had to redact from the "NOTES" field. However, we can send you an electronic copy of the exact same excel as a.csv file, which is what we do for other requesters who want excels in electronic format. Please let us know if you want the .csv file.
Please send replies to cityattorney@sfcityatty.org<mailto:cityattorney@sfcityatty.org>
Sincerely,
[cid:image002.jpg@01D5DC3F.FD0DD450]Elizabeth A. Coolbrith
Paralegal
Office of City Attorney Dennis Herrera
(415) 554-4685 Direct
www.sfcityattorney.org
Find us on: Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/sfcityattorney/> Twitter<https://twitter.com/SFCityAttorney> Instagram<https://www.instagram.com/sfcityattorney/>
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
Your position is inconsistent with what your office argued orally on Jan 21 in SOTF 19044.
Complaints will be filed momentarily.
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
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following California Public Records Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Jan. 22, 2020. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: twitter.com/journo_anon Public Records Requester
You can ignore the follow-up - complaints have been filed.
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Good Morning:
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).
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
<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> 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 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.
-
image001
From:
Dear Cheryl or Victor,
Attached is our response to complaint number 20054 and one exhibit. Please include them in the agenda packet.
Thank you,
[cid:image001.jpg@01D5F634.22C8B990]John Coté
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: San Francisco City Attorney
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
Cheryl.Leger@sfgov.org<mailto:Cheryl.Leger@sfgov.org>
Tel: 415-554-7724
Fax: 415-554-5163
www.sfbos.org
[CustomerSatisfactionIcon]<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> 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 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.
-
image001_oqyTJ7v_RKCa8MU_mwzK8W1_kpEE9OK_viagEFa_fBmLkBu
From: Muckrock Staff
To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following California Public Records Act request, copied below, and originally submitted on Jan. 22, 2020. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.
From: San Francisco City Attorney
We have no responsive documents. This e-mail appears to have been sent to the Office of Economic and Workforce Development in error.
Marianne Mazzucco Thompson
Office of Economic and Workforce Development
City Hall, Room 448
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
P: 415-554-6297
E: Marianne.Thompson@sfgov.org<mailto:Marianne.Thompson@sfgov.org>
[cid:image001.png@01D681C7.A8D6C210]<http://www.twitter.com/sfoewd> [cid:image002.png@01D681C7.A8D6C210] <http://www.facebook.com/sfoewd> [cid:image003.png@01D681C7.A8D6C210] <http://www.oewd.org/>
From: San Francisco City Attorney
Good Morning:
Notice is hereby given that the Education, Outreach and Training Committee (Committee) of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (Task Force) shall hold hearings on the 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. PLEASE CONFIRM YOUR ATTENDANCE BY JANUARY 5, 2022, 5:00 PM.
Date: January 11, 2022
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. 21149: Complaint filed by Mark Sullivan against David Steinberg and Public Works for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.25 and 67.34, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner and willful failure to discharge duties imposed by the Sunshine Ordinance.
File No. 21159: Complaint filed by Bob Planthold against the Department of Building Inspection Commission (Access Appeals Commission) for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.16 by failing to post meeting minutes (2000 through 2011).
File No. 20054: Complaint filed by Anonymous against The Office of the City Attorney, Dennis Herrera, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(b)(l) by failing to respond to a records request in a complete and timely manner, 67.26 withholding of records, 67.27(c)(d) failure to provide legal citations.
File No. 21116: Complaint filed by Anonymous against Department of Public Health (DPH) for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.21, by failing respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 21125: Complaint filed by Liza Murawski against the Department of Public Health (DPH) for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.21, by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.
File No. 21129: Complaint filed by Cathy Mosbrucker against Anthony Lepe and the Department of Building Inspection for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section(s) 67.7, by failing to post an agenda with appropriate contact information.
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, January 6, 2022..
Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Tel: 415-554-7724
<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> Click here<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=104> to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.
The Legislative Research Center<http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=9681> 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 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.
-
image001
From:
Hi,
I am following up to confirm, if you are receive my previous email .
Let me know your thoughts so that I can send you additional information.
I await your response
Regards,
David.
Files
pages