Inter-Agency Text Messages - Immediate Disclosure Request (SF PUC)

Public Utilities Commission and Harlan Kelly Jr.:

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency and its department head. Your response is required by June 12, 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, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color images. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

1. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

2. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates (including but not limited to jaidin@pacbell.net, jdngrp@pacbell.net, or any email address ending with jaidin.net ), on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

3. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

4. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Naomi Kelly, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2020 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

For text messages: While the phone numbers are not needed, the following must be preserved: the timestamps, the textual content, attachments, and images, and also ALL sender and recipient names (including groups). Pursuant to SF Admin Code 67.21(l), which requires you to use any electronic format that we request, please provide the records in spreadsheet format. For an example of the format of the response, see SFPD Chief Scott's prior response here: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2020/04/14/Text_Messages_Breed_Scott_Redacted.pdf and clearly referenced redaction justifications here: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2020/04/14/ChiefOfficeResponse201.pdf (though I do not concede all of them are appropriate redactions) . Please provide rolling responses, starting with the most recent records going backwards. Messages to/from before your current department head became the department head must still be provided.

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations. Remember Mr. Kelly has an obligation to maintain in a professional and businesslike manner their correspondence and release them as public records (SF Admin Code 67.27-9(a)); and we will cross-check your responses with all other parties to ensure you have not destroyed or withheld records improperly.

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must 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)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website like NextRequest to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in.

Your agency must do all of the above things 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 the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

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

MR. KELLY: This was also sent to the Public Records email, and is being sent directly to you so you do not destroy responsive records:

Public Utilities Commission and Harlan Kelly Jr.:

Below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to your agency and its department head. Your response is required by June 12, 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, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color images. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

1. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and London Breed, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

2. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates (including but not limited to jaidin@pacbell.net, jdngrp@pacbell.net, or any email address ending with jaidin.net ), on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

3. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mohammed Nuru, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2015 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

4. All text, email, or chat messages (including group messages, in any form or application including but not limited to SMS, MMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Signal, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Hangouts, Skype, Teams) sent or received to/cc/bcc/from between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Naomi Kelly, on government or personal accounts from Jan 1, 2020 and present (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

For text messages: While the phone numbers are not needed, the following must be preserved: the timestamps, the textual content, attachments, and images, and also ALL sender and recipient names (including groups). Pursuant to SF Admin Code 67.21(l), which requires you to use any electronic format that we request, please provide the records in spreadsheet format. For an example of the format of the response, see SFPD Chief Scott's prior response here: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2020/04/14/Text_Messages_Breed_Scott_Redacted.pdf and clearly referenced redaction justifications here: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2020/04/14/ChiefOfficeResponse201.pdf (though I do not concede all of them are appropriate redactions) . Please provide rolling responses, starting with the most recent records going backwards. Messages to/from before your current department head became the department head must still be provided.

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations. Remember Mr. Kelly has an obligation to maintain in a professional and businesslike manner their correspondence and release them as public records (SF Admin Code 67.27-9(a)); and we will cross-check your responses with all other parties to ensure you have not destroyed or withheld records improperly.

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must 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)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website like NextRequest to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in.

Your agency must do all of the above things 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 the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

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

Thank you - MuckRock staff will hopefully get the files within the week. If not, we will need to request you extend the deadline.

However, I think files may be missing. You mentioned for example text messages in Bates 161-219. But I only received Bates 161-168. Where are the rest?

I also didn't receive I assume what is Bates 001 thru 160. Was there a mistake in uploading?

Here's what I got:

Sink hole at 110 Alta Street 1_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Drawing of Fire Hydrant Location_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
MLB1_Redacted.pdf
Night Noise Permit requirements_Redacted for Privacy ACP.pdf
Sewage Issue on 865 Market St_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
3 street lights are out of order on Stockton & Jackson streets _Redacted for Privacy.pdf
2401 Broadway_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Bell and snow flake_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Itinerary -California.pdf
letter is ready for pick up_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Node specifications_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Revised invitation for Vice Governor_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Revised invitation_July 24_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
street lights are out of order on Stockton & Jackson streets._Redacted for Privacy.pdf
The 9th Annual Chinatown Ping Pong Festival_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Vice governor Ye Zhenqin of Guangdong Province and the delegation (2)_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
1317 20th Avenue Water Department Work Order Issued letter_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Bell Shaped and Snowflake LED.pdf
Revised invitation for Vice Governor (1)_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Sink hole at 110 Alta Street_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Sunset Boulevard Greenway Project - Funding Problems with SFPUC_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Sunset Boulevard Greenway Project - Funding Problems with SFPUC_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Vice governor Ye Zhenqin of Guangdong Province and the delegation_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
叶贞琴副省长Name list_Nov visit_Redacted for Privacy.pdf
Drawing of Fire Hydrant Location 1_Redacted for Privacy.pdf

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

Public Utilities Commission and Harlan Kelly Jr.:

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.

You appear to have partially obscured some of the text messages between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong, but the text of some of those records is still visible in "Walter redacted final.pdf". It's unclear why these communications - regarding meetings, contracting, and travel between the two persons, have been partially obscured - they are neither completely redacted nor plainly visible as they have black rectangles on top of them, but they remain part of the record.

Therefore, below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to SFPUC and Harlan Kelly Jr. Your response is required by July 8, 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, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color images. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

1. All calendar entries of any kind, with all details, invitee lists, attachments, and metadata, for Harlan Kelly Jr. for any meetings or travel with Walter Wong (including but not limited to jaidin@pacbell.net, jdngrp@pacbell.net, or any email address ending with jaidin.net ) (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)); see also SOTF 19047 Anonymous v. Breed

2. All payments made by Harlan Kelly Jr. to Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates/affiliated companies (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

3. All payments made by Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates/affiliated companies to Harlan Kelly Jr. (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

4. All contracts between Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates/affiliated companies and Harlan Kelly Jr. (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

Please provide rolling responses, starting with the most recent records going backwards. Messages to/from before your current department head became the department head must still be provided.

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations. Remember Mr. Kelly has an obligation to maintain in a professional and businesslike manner their correspondence and release them as public records (SF Admin Code 67.27-9(a)); and we will cross-check your responses with all other parties to ensure you have not destroyed or withheld records improperly.

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must 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)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website like NextRequest to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in.

Your agency must do all of the above things 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 the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Public Utilities Commission and Harlan Kelly Jr.:

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.

You appear to have partially obscured some of the text messages between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong, but the text of some of those records is still visible in "Walter redacted final.pdf". It's unclear why these communications - regarding meetings, contracting, and travel between the two persons, have been partially obscured - they are neither completely redacted nor plainly visible as they have black rectangles on top of them, but they remain part of the record.

Therefore, below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to SFPUC and Harlan Kelly Jr. Your response is required by July 8, 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, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color images. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

1. All calendar entries of any kind, with all details, invitee lists, attachments, and metadata, for Harlan Kelly Jr. for any meetings or travel with Walter Wong (including but not limited to jaidin@pacbell.net, jdngrp@pacbell.net, or any email address ending with jaidin.net ) (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)); see also SOTF 19047 Anonymous v. Breed

2. All payments made by Harlan Kelly Jr. to Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates/affiliated companies (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

3. All payments made by Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates/affiliated companies to Harlan Kelly Jr. (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

4. All contracts between Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates/affiliated companies and Harlan Kelly Jr. (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

Please provide rolling responses, starting with the most recent records going backwards.

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations. Remember Mr. Kelly has an obligation to maintain in a professional and businesslike manner their correspondence and release them as public records (SF Admin Code 67.27-9(a)); and we will cross-check your responses with all other parties to ensure you have not destroyed or withheld records improperly.

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must 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)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website like NextRequest to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in.

Your agency must do all of the above things 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 the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

Hi,

I believe these documents were never posted on our site. The link you sent said it had already been downloaded the maximum number of times. If you're aware of those documents being posted anywhere, please let me know and happy to remove.

Thanks,
Michael

Hi Cheryl - The actual complaint does not appear to be attached to the notice to PUC. Thanks.

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.

Thanks for the prompt attention as always Ms. Leger!

SFPUC, Harlan Kelly Jr., and Juliet Ellis:

On July 13, 2020, the SF Examiner published a document appearing to be a subpoena of the SFPUC issued by the US Attorney on June 15, 2020, and received by the City Attorney's office on June 25: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6988152-Grand-Jury-Subpoena-of-the-SFPUC.html - previously reported on July 10 by the SF Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/U-S-attorney-hits-SFPUC-with-subpoena-as-SF-City-15400910.php

This is a new immediate disclosure request for
(a) all records and replies and responses of any form provided by PUC in response to the above-linked subpoena,
(b) all copies of the subpoena, including with any notes or markings,
(c) a search of Harlan Kelly Jr and Juliet Ellis's personal and govt email/SMS/text/MMS/chat accounts (of any form, of any app) for the case-insensitive word "subpoena" from June 1, 2020 to present.

Please provide exact copies and rolling responses.

Please do not forget that my original June 11 and subsequent July 7, 2020-dated requests remain outstanding.

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

SFPUC, Harlan Kelly Jr., and Juliet Ellis:

On July 13, 2020, the SF Examiner published a document appearing to be a subpoena of the SFPUC issued by the US Attorney on June 15, 2020, and received by the City Attorney's office on June 25: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6988152-Grand-Jury-Subpoena-of-the-SFPUC.html - previously reported on July 10 by the SF Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/U-S-attorney-hits-SFPUC-with-subpoena-as-SF-City-15400910.php

This is a new immediate disclosure request for
(a) all records and replies and responses of any form provided by PUC in response to the above-linked subpoena,
(b) all copies of the subpoena, including with any notes or markings,
(c) a search of Harlan Kelly Jr and Juliet Ellis's personal and govt email/SMS/text/MMS/chat accounts (of any form, of any app) for the case-insensitive word "subpoena" from June 1, 2020 to present.

Please provide exact copies and rolling responses.

Please do not forget that my original June 11 and subsequent July 7, 2020-dated requests remain outstanding.

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

SFPUC, Harlan Kelly Jr., and Juliet Ellis:

On July 13, 2020, the SF Examiner published a document appearing to be a subpoena of the SFPUC issued by the US Attorney on June 15, 2020, and received by the City Attorney's office on June 25: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6988152-Grand-Jury-Subpoena-of-the-SFPUC.html - previously reported on July 10 by the SF Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/U-S-attorney-hits-SFPUC-with-subpoena-as-SF-City-15400910.php

This is a new immediate disclosure request for
(a) all records and replies and responses of any form provided by PUC in response to the above-linked subpoena,
(b) all copies of the subpoena, including with any notes or markings,
(c) a search of Harlan Kelly Jr and Juliet Ellis's personal and govt email/SMS/text/MMS/chat accounts (of any form, of any app) for the case-insensitive word "subpoena" from June 1, 2020 to present.

Please provide exact copies and rolling responses.

Please do not forget that my original June 11 and subsequent July 7, 2020-dated requests remain outstanding.

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

SFPUC, Harlan Kelly Jr., and Juliet Ellis:

On July 13, 2020, the SF Examiner published a document appearing to be a subpoena of the SFPUC issued by the US Attorney on June 15, 2020, and received by the City Attorney's office on June 25: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6988152-Grand-Jury-Subpoena-of-the-SFPUC.html - previously reported on July 10 by the SF Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/U-S-attorney-hits-SFPUC-with-subpoena-as-SF-City-15400910.php

This is a new immediate disclosure request for
(a) all records and replies and responses of any form provided by PUC in response to the above-linked subpoena,
(b) all copies of the subpoena, including with any notes or markings,
(c) a search of Harlan Kelly Jr and Juliet Ellis's personal and govt email/SMS/text/MMS/chat accounts (of any form, of any app) for the case-insensitive word "subpoena" from June 1, 2020 to present.

Please provide exact copies and rolling responses.

Please do not forget that my original June 11 and subsequent July 7, 2020-dated requests remain outstanding.

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

Thank you. Please don't forget the June 11 and July 7 requests. I've attached July 7 as a reminder.

You previously provided the records in attached Exhibits A and B - do you have any further records for requests #1 and #2 of June 11 ?

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

Thank you. Please don't forget the June 11 and July 7 requests. The time to initially respond to my July 7 request has expired.

This is an additional immediate disclosure request for the remainder of the provided J Ellis message thread covering all messages from Jan 1 2020 to present, and for the contact record of the participant labeled T.

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

Thank you for those records. This is a reminder that the following requests sent July 7 have had no response whatsoever, including a lack of extension , in violation of the CPRA. You need to inform me which requests have records, which are being denied with justification, etc.

Therefore, below are new Immediate Disclosure Requests (SF Admin Code 67.25(a)) directed to SFPUC and Harlan Kelly Jr. Your response is required by July 8, 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, print and scan electronic records, convert native files to PDFs, or provide black and white versions of any color images. Provide only copies of records not requiring fees and in-person inspection of all other records (GC 6253).

1. All calendar entries of any kind, with all details, invitee lists, attachments, and metadata, for Harlan Kelly Jr. for any meetings or travel with Walter Wong (including but not limited to jaidin@pacbell.net, jdngrp@pacbell.net, or any email address ending with jaidin.net ) (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017)); see also SOTF 19047 Anonymous v. Breed

2. All payments made by Harlan Kelly Jr. to Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates/affiliated companies (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

3. All payments made by Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates/affiliated companies to Harlan Kelly Jr. (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

4. All contracts between Walter Wong/Jaidin Consulting Group/Jaidin Associates/affiliated companies and Harlan Kelly Jr. (you must search personal accounts pursuant to City of San Jose v Superior Court (2017))

Please provide rolling responses, starting with the most recent records going backwards.

Do not destroy or discard any responsive records - we will appeal all withholdings or Sunshine violations. Remember Mr. Kelly has an obligation to maintain in a professional and businesslike manner their correspondence and release them as public records (SF Admin Code 67.27-9(a)); and we will cross-check your responses with all other parties to ensure you have not destroyed or withheld records improperly.

Your non-exhaustive obligations:
- All withholding of any information must be justified in writing (SFAC 67.27).
- All withholdings by masking or deletion (aka redactions) must be keyed by footnote or other clear reference to the specific justification for that redaction, and only the minimal exempt portion of any record may be withheld (SFAC 67.26).
- You must 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)).
- Do not impose any end-user restrictions upon me (Santa Clara Co. vs Superior Ct, 170 Cal.App 4th 1301); so if you use a third-party website like NextRequest to publish records, please make them completely public without any login or sign-in.

Your agency must do all of the above things 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 the City's procedures are modified to fully comply with the Sunshine Ordinance and CPRA, without caveat or exception. ******

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

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

Ms. Leger - This appears to bea duplicate of complaint 20084 filed in July 2020 when Harlan was still a city employee. I'll stick with the older file number 20084....

Thank you. We do not concede that any of the still-withheld information is in fact lawfully withheld. Analysis and corroboration continue. You will see petitions shortly.

I also enjoyed the part of your letter that speaks on behalf of the entire City's procedures re: personally-held public records - I assume it was dictated by Herrera. Funny stuff.

--Anonymous

Mr. Carlin and SFPUC:

This is a NEW immediate disclosure request for all communications between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong in the possession of the PUC for dates (a) BEFORE Jan 1, 2015, and also (b) ON OR AFTER June 11, 2020. These were not responsive to my request on June 11. I'm not arguing PUC has to go talk to Kelly now as a former employee (for this request) - but if you (i.e. PUC, or any of its current employees) have anywhere in your computer systems or in hardcopy any copies (including the black hiliter but unredacted file) of responsive records - you must provide them to me. I know that your agency still possesses at least some of these records both based on the black hiliter file and also based on your admission in the recent letter to me ( https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2021/02/22/2-22-21_Letter_re_Harlan_Kelly_texts.pdf ).

Thanks,
Anonymous

See attached distinct 67.21(D) petition about Kelly-Breed messages.

FOR FILE 20084 and FILE 20127:

1. As the Task Force is aware, attempting to produce records months after I file a complaint does not in any way mean that the Respondents did not violate the ordinance at the time I filed the complaint. By the City's logic as long as some point down the line you produce records, there are never any violations of the Ordinance. You've never made a determination in that manner, and you should not now do so.

2. The records have still not been produced in full even to this day. Various text messages had attachment parts, have been admitted to be public, and the attachments have not yet been provided. That remains non-minimal withholding and an incomplete response.

While I do not have to specifically request attachments (since attachments are in fact stored within the text message electronic record), I did specifically request them:

"For text messages: While the phone numbers are not needed, the following must be preserved: the timestamps, the textual content, attachments, and images, and also ALL sender and recipient names (including groups)."

Thanks,
Anonymous

Supervisor of Records Herrera:

New 67.21(d) petition.

The attached record produced by PUC in response to a records request from this email address is challenged.
An email between Sean Elsbernd and Naomi Kelly cannot be Attorney-Client Privileged - neither of them is the attorney for the other.
Furthermore the two attachments were not provided.
Furthermore the email addresses of the Kellys were clearly available as hyperlinks in the records, but have been stripped for no legal reason - likely because the government continues to fail to produce even simple PDFs as actual full-fidelity PDFs instead of image renderings.
Please determine some portion of these records are public (in writing) and order them disclosed.

--Anonymous

This is an immediate disclosure request for the original unredacted PDF of texts between Kelly and Wong, in its original electronic format.
I remember it had selectable text (not OCR text) which is why I could see the black rectangle messages. You can of course redact what you think is redactable, but I want the original format document.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

See attached 2nd petition for Breed-Herrera records.

Supervisor of Records Dennis Herrera:

This is a petition under SF Admin Code 67.21(d) to determine in writing that the redacted portions of the attached exhibits and of the attachment on page 7 of the Melanie records are public and order them disclosed. It continues to challenge various previously-unappealed parts of the PUC's response to the June 11, 2020 request from this email address. You may wish to consider it as part of the prior-filed March 2 and March 9 petitions re: overly-redacted Kelly-Breed messages, and March 9 petition re: overly-redacted Naomi Kelly-Harlan Kelly messages, as long as you make determinations on all challenged records. The Melanie record has been redacted voluntarily by us to remove a phone number which was published by PUC itself.

As we have already proven via prior petitions, the PUC previously unlawfully redacted certain text messages between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Walter Wong. Moreover, the PUC has admitted as such in its Feb 22, 2021 letter (in which it also re-released a new version of mostly-unredacted Kelly-Wong texts) and via DCA Jon Givner's letter of March 8, 2021. The PUC apparently violated the law because it allowed Harlan Kelly Jr. to control the redaction of his own records without any oversight by the PUC itself -- which also was apparently then and remains now the policy and practice of the City, pursuant to your long-standing advice to the City re: your interpretation of City of San Jose v. Superior Court. However, as you discuss in your memo interpreting, the City is always ultimately responsible for the actions and judgments of its employees in such matter.

Given Kelly's prior mis-redaction of the Walter Wong texts to protect sensitive-but-disclosable communications, there is no reason to believe that the redactions made in the attached text messages were then or are currently lawful, and each must be justified under a specific provision of the law.

Furthermore, a copy of the attachment on page 7 of the Melanie records must be produced as required by Admin Code 67.21. This tiny, compressed, printed and scanned version is unreadable and thus withholds its textual content, which is precisely why we have successfully previously argued that such production does not even constitute a "copy" of the underlying record (see SOTF decisions 19098 Anonymous v Police Department, 19131 Anonymous v Cisneros).

On March 10, 2021, you asserted a right to simply refuse to issue determinations to petitions filed pursuant to Admin Code 67.21(d). It is telling that you have decided to do so as we have continued to successfully uncover violations of the law by City agencies and officials, including both by yourself personally and your office (see SOTF decisions 19108 Anonymous v Herrera, 19044 Anonymous v Office of the City Attorney, 19120 Anonymous v Office of the City Attorney).

If you refuse to review the records and issue a determination and order if needed, you will be violating Admin Code 67.21(d) yourself and potentially aiding your City clients in violating the law as a direct result of willfully refusing to perform your own legally-mandated duties.

The City has throughout its history, whether by declaring war on the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force or on successful transparency advocates themselves, attempted to neuter the Sunshine Ordinance to prevent disclosure of all lawfully-disclosable public information which may be unfriendly to senior officials' political prospects. Yet the public has the right to know whether its representatives conduct the public business in the interest of the public or in their private interest.

As such advocates become more successful, your office appears to consider them a threat to your control over the City's public records regime, instead of treating us fairly as petitioners in a proceeding where you act in a quasi-judicial role. There is no doubt I file numerous petitions -- and those petitions and complaints have forced the City to become significantly more compliant with the Sunshine Ordinance, which can be seen by the additional disclosures your office causes agencies to provide in response to my petitions and the nearly entirely successful series of complaints I have won at the SOTF.

As long as the City continues to violate the law -- apparently often due to your deputies' poor advice or training -- no ethical option exists other than to continue to petition and appeal for complete, timely, and lawful disclosure, without exception.

Sincerely,

An Anonymous Independent Journalist

PUC:

(ignore the message re Amazon prime in the thread - looks like spam sent to the mailing list)

Please produce your copy of every email shown in the attached thread (sent and received), with To/From/Cc/Bcc and attachments.

PUC:

(ignore the message re Amazon prime in the thread - looks like spam sent to the mailing list)

Please produce your copy of every email shown in the attached thread (sent and received), with To/From/Cc/Bcc and attachments.

PUC:

1. I'm still waiting for PUC to produce the single first page of Wong-Kelly messages unredacted. This is the page where the PUC in its Feb 2021 production removed the pre-2015 messages. One page should not take this long and this constitutes an unreasonable delay.

As a reminder:
- PUC published a PDF record in July 2020 at https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-sfaf513caac747dcb with nearly completely unredacted Kelly-Wong messages. Its first page contained pre-2015 messages.
- PUC in July 2020 requested a retraction and that I delete my copy of that PDF (which I voluntarily did, and without conceding any obligation to do so), and PUC published a replacement which redacted most of what Kelly and Wong said to each other, including redacting the pre-2015 messages.
- PUC in Feb 2021 provided a third version of the file at https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2021/02/22/Harlan_Kelly_Text_Messages_-_Redacted_Jan_29_2021.pdf which unredacted most of the Kelly-Wong messages but completely removed the pre-2015 portion as non-responsive.

I want that pre-2015 public record portion.

2. PUC previously disclosed a Juliet Ellis text message in this series of requests, vis: https://cdn.muckrock.com/foia_files/2020/07/27/J_Ellis_personal_text_ACP_Redacted.pdf

This is an immediate disclosure request for text, chat, or instant message communications between the "MC" mentioned in that message (presumably now agency head Michael Carlin) and Juliet Ellis from June 10, 2020 to present. This is an immediate disclosure request for text, chat, or instant message communications between "MC" and "Scarpulla" from June 10, 2020 to present. This is an immediate disclosure request for text, chat, or instant message communications between "MC" and any member of the Board of Supervisors or their staff from June 10, 2020 to present. Provide rolling responses, exact copies, and preserve all date/time stamps, participant names, group convos, attachments, images, audio, and video.

Thank you for your expected cooperation.

(ignore the message re Amazon prime in the thread - looks like spam sent to the mailing list)

Sincerely,
Anonymous

Don't forget this request https://www.muckrock.com/foi/san-francisco-141/inter-agency-text-messages-immediate-disclosure-request-sf-puc-94992/#comm-1051102 too. Thanks!

See attached letter.

Earlier today, PUC provided the following records in response to the attached request.
I am logging them in this thread.

Hi PUC:

Can you actually send a copy of the "June-Dec 2014" record to this address? Thank you.

This is a further (and distinct) immediate disclosure request to PUC for the following (in priority order; please provide rolling response per Admin Code 67.25(d)):

(1) Any text, chat, or instant messages between Harlan Kelly Jr. and Mayor London Breed. These, I know you have retained somewhere.

(2) Any text, chat, or instant messages between Harlan Kelly Jr. and any of David Gray, Julie Labonte, Henry Alvarez, (Rudolph) Dwayne Jones, Chris Gruwell, Tommy Moala, Paul Giusti, Juliet Ellis, Harlan Wong, Willie Brown, Chief William Scott, Tom Hui, or Nick Bovis. These, maybe you have lying around on a computer. Possibly an iMessage backup or similar.

You have provided some of these records in the past, but this is a NEW request, that you need to provide a new response to. Based on your Wong/Kelly response, somewhere on your PUC government systems (and not Kelly's PEDs) is likely a fully unredacted, no-time-limit record of these messages and PUC must now use its own judgment (not Kelly's) to decide what to redact here.

You may, at this moment, not have retained images, attachments, etc. but if you do retain them anywhere, you need to turn them over. But they may very well be stored within the archive of the iMessages that are apparently on your computer systems.

Furthermore, I would like an exact copy of the native PDF files (after redactions) - not a print/scan copy. Acrobat can correctly apply redactions where the black rectangle cannot be removed - but you just need to use the tool correctly. I have won multiple SOTF rulings on this same matter and will file complaints if you do not comply.

--Anonymous

Thank you - to confirm: as of March 24, PUC did not have any copy of the unredacted Kelly-MLB messages? Even a PDF with mere rectangles that could be removed covering the text would be responsive to my request.

If you have the original PDF of the Kelly-MLB messages that is NOT printed and scanned, that is a responsive record.