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

Anonymous Journalist filed this request with the Public Utilities Commission of San Francisco, CA .
Due Oct. 5, 2021
Est. Completion March 26, 2021
Status
Awaiting Response

Communications

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear MuckRock News,

Thank you for your public records request. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Mayor has issued supplementary orders suspending select provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance which will affect how soon you may receive responsive documents. This memo<https://www.sfwater.org/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=15142> provides details.
We have forwarded your request the appropriate staff and will provide an update including a potential timeline within 10 days.
Best regards,
SFPUC Public Records

From: Public Utilities Commission

We are in receipt of your request dated June 11, 2020. We have identified records responsive to your request and are proceeding to review them for any necessary redactions or withholding. We have not yet completed our search for or review of responsive records. As explained in the attached memo, per emergency orders of the Mayor, the City's time to produce records in response to PRA requests has been extended during the emergency. We are providing this initial response within 10 days in accordance with those orders. Based on the volume and nature of the documents, we plan to provide initial documents by July 3, 2020. We will provide additional documents on a rolling basis thereafter.

SFPUC Public Records

Suzanne Gautier
Manager, Communications and Public Outreach
External Affairs
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 12<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0>th<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0> Floor<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0>
San Francisco, CA 94102<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0>
Phone - 415-513-2529<tel:415.583.2540>
Email - sgautier@sfwater.org<http://www.sfwater.org/>
Note: I am working remotely until further notice

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Muckrock News

Please access documents responsive to your June 11 request below.

https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s9194ec992cf4e6cb

Please do so within a week as the link will expire.

With regard to the PDFs we are providing that contain text messages (Bates Stamp #s 161-219), please be advised that all of the redactions in those PDFs are of text messages that do not contain "information relating to the conduct of the public's business" and therefore do not constitute "public records" responsive to your request. (Cal. Gov. Code § 6252(e); see also City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, 626 ("Any personal information not related to the conduct of public business . . . can be redacted from public records that are produced or presented for review." (citing Cal. Gov. Code § 6253(a)); City Attorney memorandum dated March 24, 2017 titled "Public Records on Personal Electronic Devices, available at https://www.sfcityattorney.org/legalopinions/).

With regard to the email messages we are producing today at Bates Stamp #220-260, as indicated in these documents, we have redacted on privacy grounds personal email addresses, personal telephone numbers, dates and places of birth, personal identification numbers, and gender pursuant to California Government Code section 6254, subdivisions (c) and (k) and Article I, section 1, of the California Constitution. (See also San Francisco Administrative Code § 67.1(g)).

Finally, we have redacted from the email titled, "Night Noise permit requirements" (Bates Stamp #234-235) content constituting privileged and confidential attorney-client communications. (See, Cal. Gov. Code § 6254(k) (providing an exemption for records protected from disclosure under federal or state law, including provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege; Cal. Evid. Code § 954 (communications between attorneys and their clients are privileged); Cal. Gov. Code § 6276.04 (cross-referencing the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges); S.F. Admin. Code § 67.21(k)).

We are responding to your request on a rolling basis and expect to be producing additional responsive records next week.

Please be advised that we are responding to your records request on behalf of the SFPUC only, and only as to records that are within the SFPUC's possession. Each City department receives, searches, and responds to public records requests on behalf of its own department, not Citywide. Accordingly you may wish to also contact the Department of Public Works, the City Administrator's Office, and/or the Mayor's Office, as those departments and offices may also have records responsive to your request.
Best regards,
SFPUC Public Records

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Muckrock News,

Apologies and thanks for letting us know. Please use this link for Bates numbers 161 to 219.
https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-sfaf513caac747dcb
Please note that it will expire in 7 days.

Bates 001 through 160 are under review and will be provided once they are ready.

Thanks for your patience.

SFPUC Public Records

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear MuckRock,

Thank you for bringing to our attention an inadvertent error in the redactions we performed for the text messages we provided you on July 6, 2020 labeled Bates numbers PUC 000175 through PUC 000219. As explained in our July 3rd email to you, we redacted from these records messages containing personal and private information that did not constitute a "public record." Although the legal basis for these redactions was proper, we now realize that the technical method we used to black out the private material did not in fact protect the private information from disclosure. That was not our intent and was an inadvertent error. The material we intended to redact contains sensitive personal information that is protected from disclosure by Cal. Constitution Art. I, Sec. I and Section 6254(c) of the Public Records Act.

In such cases of accidental, inadvertent disclosure of private or confidential information in response to a Public Records Act request, the documents must be returned and copies destroyed if the City notifies those who have received an inadvertently disclosed record. (See Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 62 Cal.4th 1176). The SFPUC hereby requests that MuckRock immediately destroy all copies of Bates numbers PUC 000175 through PUC 000219 in its possession and remove them from all publicly accessible locations, including the MuckRock.com website.

Please note that the version of this text exchange that we shared with you on July 6, 2020 has been removed from the Sharefile weblink. You can access a new redacted version of this text exchange at the following link: https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-sabd81b687ef4187b.

Please respond on or before Thursday July 9 at 5 pm confirming that you have destroyed and/or removed these records. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

SFPUC Public Records

From: Muckrock Staff

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

From:

Dear Anonymous: Have you completed a New Response Complaint Form? I have not seen it and will need it to process your complaint. Thank you.

Cheryl Leger
Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Cheryl.Leger@sfgov.org
Tel: 415-554-7724
Fax: 415-554-5163
www.sfbos.org

  Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center 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.

From: Public Utilities Commission

Good Morning:

Harlan Kelly and the Public Utilities Commission have been named as Respondents in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the attached 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.

From: Anonymous Journalist

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.

From: Public Utilities Commission

Sorry All! I thought I had attached it.

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.

From: Anonymous Journalist

Thanks for the prompt attention as always Ms. Leger!

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Public Utilities Commission

Thank you for your public records request. We are in receipt of your request dated July 15, 2020. As explained in the attached memo, per the emergency orders of the Mayor, the provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance relating to immediate disclosure requests have been temporarily suspended for the duration of the local emergency. We will provide our initial response to you on or before July 27, 2010, in accordance with those Mayoral orders and the California Public Records Act.

In addition, I am attaching the Subpoena in response to item (b) of the request.

Public Records

Suzanne Gautier
Manager, Communications and Public Outreach
External Affairs
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 12<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0>th<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0> Floor<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0>
San Francisco, CA 94102<x-apple-data-detectors://5/0>
Phone - 415-513-2529<tel:415.583.2540>
Email - sgautier@sfwater.org<http://www.sfwater.org/>
Note: I am working remotely until further notice

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Public Utilities Commission

Thank you for your request. For part (a) of your request, any communications between the SFPUC and the City Attorney’s Office that are potentially responsive to your request have been withheld pursuant to the attorney-client privilege (See Cal. Gov’t Code § 6254(k) (exemption for records protected from disclosure under federal or state law, including provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege); Cal. Evid. Code § 954 (privilege for communications between attorneys and their clients); Cal. Gov’t Code § 6276.04 (cross-referencing in the Public Records Act the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges).) We are unable to provide you any other documents responsive to part (a) of your request because they are confidential and pertain to ongoing investigations. (See Cal. Evid. Code § 1040; Cal. Gov’t Code § 6255.)

We have already provided you with all documents responsive to part of (b) your request, which sought copies of federal subpoenas the SFPUC has received.

Regarding part (c) of your request, please be advised that we have redacted from the attached responsive text messages information that constitutes attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product. (See Cal. Gov’t Code § 6254(k) (exemption for records protected from disclosure under federal or state law, including provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege); Cal. Evid. Code § 954 (privilege for communications between attorneys and their clients); Cal. Gov’t Code § 6276.04 (cross-referencing in the Public Records Act the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges).)

We now consider our response to this request closed.

Public Records

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Public Utilities Commission

Good morning,

The link below provides access to additional responsive documents. This link will be accessible for one week. Please let Public Records know if you are unable to access the documents.

https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-sfcaec0e725d4ef1a

Public Records

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Public Utilities Commission

Good afternoon,

With regards to the PRA Request submitted on 7 July 2020 (July 6, 2020 per date of email) – as described in the Subject Line above, after conducting a diligent search for potentially responsive records, the PUC does not have records responsive to this request.

Harlan Kelly has checked and confirmed he has no records that respond to parts 2-4 of the request, and after our office’s review, we have determined that the PUC has no records that respond to part 1 of the request.

At this time we are concluding our search for responsive documents and closing this request.

Public Records

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Anonymous,

Please see the attached letter regarding SOTF complaint No. 20084.

SFPUC Public Records

From: Public Utilities Commission

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.

From: Public Utilities Commission

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.C94DEA50]<http://www.twitter.com/sfoewd> [cid:image002.png@01D681C7.C94DEA50] <http://www.facebook.com/sfoewd> [cid:image003.png@01D681C7.C94DEA50] <http://www.oewd.org/>

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

In regards to your public records request submitted on June 11, 2020, we provided responsive documents to this request in July 2020. We sent you the first batch of responsive documents provided on July 2, 2020 and then provided additional documents later in July. We believe that we may have additional responsive records which are currently under review. We will endeavor to provide these to you and complete the request as soon as possible.

Thank you for your patience.
Best regards,
SFPUC Public Records

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,
Please use the link below to access additional responsive records.
<https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s948a2dc9980431b9>
https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s948a2dc9980431b9

We believe that we may have additional responsive records which are currently under review. We will endeavor to provide these to you and complete the request as soon as possible.

Thank you for your continued patience.
Best regards,
SFPUC Public Records

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Muckrock,

Please use the link below to access responsive documents.

https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-sa19f3080b00490c9

Please be advised that we have redacted information from the attached records that constitutes attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product. (See Cal. Gov't Code § 6254(k) (exemption for records protected from disclosure under federal or state law, including provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege); Cal. Evid. Code § 954 (privilege for communications between attorneys and their clients); Cal. Gov't Code § 6276.04 (cross-referencing in the Public Records Act the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges).) Please note that some records have been redacted because these records contain information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Specifically, we have redacted a personal cell phone number based on the California Constitution, article I, section 1, and California Government Code section 6254(c). These provisions guard against disclosure of information that would invade personal privacy.

We consider this request now complete.
Best regards,

SFPUC Public Records

From: Public Utilities Commission

Good Afternoon:

Harlan Kelly and the Public Utilities Commission have been named as Respondents in the attached complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. Please respond to the attached 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.

From: Anonymous Journalist

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....

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

Please find attached a letter from the SFPUC's Acting General Manager Michael Carlin.
Best Regards,
SFPUC Public Records

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Public Utilities Commission

Good afternoon,

Attached is the SFPUC's full response to Complaints Nos. 20127 and 20084, as well as the two documents mentioned in the response letter.

Thank you,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Public Utilities Commission

Please see attached response to your petition.

The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or the attorney work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or received this email inadvertently, please notify the sender and delete it.

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

See attached 2nd petition for Breed-Herrera records.

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Anonymous 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.

  • 2020-07-09-response-by-requester-to-puc-re_-released-info-please-check-new-complaint-filing-2020.pdf

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

This email mailbox is no longer being monitored. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has transitioned to an online records request portal. You can now make requests by clicking here<https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/new/?dept_id=4823> or at https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/new/<https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/new/?dept_id=4823>.

Alternatively, you may call the SFPUC Public Records phone number at (628) 246-1372 or email the SFPUC Records Lead, Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa, at MRuskiAugustoSa@sfwater.org<mailto:MRuskiAugustoSa@sfwater.org>.

Thank you,
SFPUC Public Records

From: Anonymous 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.

  • 2020-07-09-response-by-requester-to-puc-re_-released-info-please-check-new-complaint-filing-2020_sIc1elq.pdf

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

Thank you for your public records request. We are in receipt of your request dated March 17, 2021.

Regarding item no. 1 of your March 17 email, we recognize this is part of a request you submitted to the SFPUC on March 9, 2021. We are currently consulting with the City Attorney’s Office on the response to this portion of your earlier request and anticipate providing responsive records before the end of next week.

Regarding item no. 2 of your email, we are treating this as a new request for records. As explained in the attached memo<https://www.sfwater.org/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=15142>, per the emergency orders of the Mayor, the provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance relating to immediate disclosure requests have been temporarily suspended for the duration of the local emergency. We will provide our initial response to you on or before March 29, 2021, in accordance with those Mayoral orders and the California Public Records Act.
Best Regards,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst

From: Anonymous Journalist

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!

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

This is in response to your request for public records dated March 9, 2021, wherein you asked for "the original unredacted PDF of texts between Kelly and Wong, in its original electronic format."

As you recall, on July 9, 2020, due to an "inadvertent error in the redactions we performed for the text messages we provided you on July 6, 2020," we demanded that you destroy all copies of the record you have again requested and not forward copies to others, and we provided you a copy of the record in its place, available here<https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s62b89803d7484d6e94cbc0ce1b8b3ad3>.

Due to the extraordinary circumstances discussed in the February 22, 2021 letter sent to you (available here<https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s62b89803d7484d6e94cbc0ce1b8b3ad3>), we released a new version of the text chain on February 22 with significantly fewer redactions. Therefore, with the exception of the text messages predating 2015 contained on the page Bates stamped PUC 000175, we have disclosed to you as of February 22 all non-exempt information that you now seek. You have separately requested text messages in this chain that predate 2015, and we are currently reviewing those messages with the City Attorney's Office. As mentioned in the email we sent to you on March 18, 2021, we anticipate we will provide you with a response to that request on or before next Friday, March 26.

For the reasons stated above, we interpret your March 9, 2021 request to seek disclosure of the same information already provided to you on July 9, 2020 and February 22, 2021 and resent with this email. With regard to your remaining request for text messages pre-dating January 1, 2015, we estimate that we will fully respond to your request on or before Friday, March 26, 2021.
Best Regards,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst

From: Anonymous Journalist

See attached letter.

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

  • RE_20March20120Public20Records20Request202021-03-24T18_14_54-07_00.pdf

  • june-dec20201420text20messages-redacted.pdf3B20name3Djune-dec20201420text20messages-red.pdf

  • kelly_texts_20210301_a201.pdf3B20name3Dkelly_texts_20210301_a201.pdf

From: Anonymous Journalist

Hi PUC:

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

From: Anonymous Journalist

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

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Anonymous,

We write to follow up on your request dated March 24, 2021 in which you asked that a record released to you as responsive to a separate request be sent to this address. Attached please find the record released in response to your request dated March 1, 2021. Please note that we have redacted certain portions of the enclosed text messages that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, such as home addresses, personal phone numbers, birthdays, and photos of the interior of a private residence. (See Cal. Const. Art. I, Sec. 1; Cal. Gov’t Code § 6254(c).)

Thank you very much,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Record Senior Analyst

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requester,

Thank you for your public records request.

We are in receipt of your request dated March 24, 2021. As explained in the linked memo<https://www.sfwater.org/modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentID=15142>, per the emergency orders of the Mayor, the provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance relating to immediate disclosure requests have been temporarily suspended for the duration of the local emergency. We will provide our initial response to you on or before April 5, 2021, in accordance with those Mayoral orders and the California Public Records Act.
Best Regards,
Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst

From: Public Utilities Commission

Dear Requestor,

We are writing in response to your request dated March 24, 2021 in which you asked for the following: "(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."

With regard to Item No. 1 of your request, the SFPUC does not have any records in its possession that are responsive to this item other than the redacted text messages we previously provided you in response to your records request dated June 11, 2020. We are attaching those records here again for your reference. As you are aware, Mr. Kelly searched for and redacted these text messages from his personal cell phone last year when he was SFPUC General Manager.

Please note that the SFPUC is only responding to this request on its behalf and with regard to records in our agency's possession. Accordingly, you may wish to submit a separate public records request directly to the Mayor's Office, as that office may have records responsive to Item no. 1 of your request.

Regarding Item no. 2 of your request, after conducting a diligent search for responsive records, we have determined that we do not have in our possession records responsive to this item. Please note that the SFPUC has only conducted a search for records in its possession. Accordingly, you may wish to submit a separate public records request directly to the San Francisco Police Department and/or Department of Building Inspection, as those agencies may have records responsive to this item.

We now consider your request dated March 24, 2021 to be closed.
Best Regards,

Mayara Ruski Augusto Sa
SFPUC Public Records Senior Analyst

From: Anonymous Journalist

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.

Files

pages

Close