Patrick Thomspson - SFDA - Immediate Disclosure Request

twitter.com/journo_anon filed this request with the San Francisco District Attorney's office of San Francisco, CA.
Status
Completed

Communications

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the CPRA and Sunshine Ordinance, I hereby request the following records:

- all mentions of Patrick Thompson from Jan 1 2021 in the DA's office. Search government and personal accounts. Don't forget Signal, and make sure to preserve any records that exist at the time you receive this request, and prior to auto-deletion.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 10 calendar days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

An anonymous requester

From: San Francisco District Attorney's office

Thank you for your email. We are invoking our right to an extension as this request will require a substantial search and is therefore not an Immediate Disclosure Request. As a preliminary matter, the purpose of the immediate disclosure request is to expedite the City's response to a "simple, routine, or otherwise readily answerable request." Admin. Code 67.25(a). The Sunshine Ordinance specifies that for more extensive or demanding requests, the maximum deadlines for responding to a request apply. Id. Accordingly, a requester's mere designation of a request as an immediate disclosure request does not automatically make it so. Rather, Admin. Code 67.25(b) makes clear that the City can invoke an extension of 10 days provided the reasons for the extension are set forth and as long as the requester is notified by the close of business the day following the request.

From: San Francisco District Attorney's office

Thank you for your patience. I am just cleaning up everything and should have a response to you within the next day or so.

From: San Francisco District Attorney's office

Thank you for your patience. Attached, please find the response and responsive records to your request.
Sincerely,
SFDA Public Records

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Thank you. Your letter is a bit confusing. Are the initial citations of attorney-client and official info and investigatory files actually used by you in this response to withhold anything, or are the sole withholdings 3 emails of attorney work product, and the redactions under constitutional privacy mentioned at the bottom?

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

Also please provide the title and govt contact info for Ivy Lee that Boudin texted.

From: twitter.com/journo_anon

This is a separate follow-up request:
- Please provide all communications between DA Boudin and any judge (or communications where both Boudin and a judge are parties, if they are part of a group conversation) on government or personal accounts after Boudin became DA (provide rolling response - see Admin Code 67.25(d) for the precise definition of whaat that means). Don't forget Signal.
- Provide also provide any auto-deletion or "disappearing message" settings for any conversation with a judge. Please note, if Boudin has an empty conversation with a judge because all previous messages have already been cleared out, please still provide a screenshot of the conversation showing the lack of messages but presence of any disappearing message setting (similar to SOTF's directions in the Anderies case). The setting is controlled by Boudin and/or the receiving Judge and is thus a "writing" subject to disclosure.

From: San Francisco District Attorney's office

Dear Anonymous,
In our recent response to your public records request for records regarding Patrick Thompson, there was a link to a document (17012477 dispo memo) on page 4 and 5 of the attachment entitled "Responsive P. Thompson.pdf" that was inadvertently released. This document is attorney work product and should have been withheld on that basis. Records that contain the work product of an attorney for the People of the State of California are protected from disclosure. Cal. Govt. Code § 6254(k); Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §2018.030. The attorney work-product doctrine functions as a privilege, protecting from disclosure "[a] writing that reflects an attorney's impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal research or theories." Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2018.030(a). The attorney work-product doctrine also extends beyond records prepared for litigation purposes. Please delete and destroy any copies of the inadvertently released document: 17012477 dispo memo including removing this document from your online publication and deleting it from your records. I have attached a new pdf of the responsive records that should replace the previously disclosed PDF. Please acknowledge receipt of this email. Thank you in advance for your understanding.
Best,
SFDA Public Records

From: San Francisco District Attorney's office

Dear anonymous,
We withheld three emails as attorney work product. We redacted personal information from the text messages. I hope that clears things up.

Additionally, I sent you an email (from my email account) earlier today regarding a document that I inadvertently released in my previous response. Please see the attached email and attached PDF to replace the original PDF. Please confirm receipt of my earlier email when you have a moment.
Thank you.

Files

pages

Close